AT&T wants to control the Internet, by controlling the flow of information using a technique called “paid prioritization”. Check out TopLineISV.com, SynapticHosting.com, SynapticCompute.com and/or SynapticStorage.com to find out what you can do about it..

Other sites: SynapticCloud.com and SynapticCloudComputing.com

Robert McDowell, admittedly my favorite Federal Communications Commission member, raised this very scary observation in a piece he wrote in yesterday’s The Wall Street Journal. In short, China and Russia would support an assertion of control over the Internet by the International Telecommunications Union.

If it’s not broke, why fix it? “Fixing” it may mean handing nations not known for their celebration of the freedom of expression a new tool to dampen the exchange of ideas, as well as make a little money for their coffers by charging for access to foreign websites.

The United Nations will reportedly start discussing this proposal as part of treaty negotiations that created the ITU. Discussions begin 27 February 2012.

Well, this latest development should make net neutrality proponents here in the United States very happy. It is going to be very tough for the United States to say no to heavy handed regulation of Internet traffic when our own Federal Communications Commission has allowed for the same approach to Internet traffic here in the United States. How can we tell China, Russia, and other members of the new Internet-communist bloc that management of Internet traffic by a government agency is a bad thing when we require transparency on network management via net neutrality rules?

Article source: http://lawandpoliticsofbroadband.com/2012/02/net-neutrality-goes-global/

T-Mobile, a subsidiary of Deustche Telekom, delivered a filing to the Federal Communications Commission late Tuesday asking that it stop Verizon’s proposed acquisition of spectrum from a series of cable companies, including Comcast, Time Warner and Cox. Verizon would pay close to $4 billion for the spectrum.

ATT’s pursuit of T-Mobile was also largely about spectrum, which permits companies to enhance and expand their networks.

Also Read: FCC: Dismiss Verizon, MetroPCS Net Neutrality Challenges

T-Mobile, the country’s fourth largest wireless service provider, claims that Verizon, the biggest, already has more than enough spectrum. Permitting the company to acquire more would put the rest of the telecommunications industry at a disadvantage, it argues.

MetroPCS, the fifth largest company, also has come out against the deal, as have several public-interest groups.

Verizon announced the deal with Time Warner Comcast and Bright House Networks in December and then announced a separate deal with Fox.

Verizon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Related Articles:  FCC: Dismiss Verizon, MetroPCS Net Neutrality Challenges ATT Kills $39B T-Mobile Bid

Source

Posts Related to T-Mobile Asks FCC to Block Verizon’s Spectrum Deals with Comcast, Time Warner

Senate panel to look at Verizon spectrum deals

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A Senate antitrust panel is planning a hearing to discuss Verizon Wireless’s multibillion dollar deals to buy wireless airwaves from cable operators …

Article source: http://www.onlinews.net/t-mobile-asks-fcc-to-block-verizons-spectrum-deals-with-comcast-time-warner/

The service, known as Xfinity Streampix, is designed to complement Comcast’s existing Xfinity on Demand and TV Everywhere initiatives. Xfinity Streampix will become available to Comcast customers later this week and includes access to full-seasons of TV shows from Disney-ABC, NBC Universal, Sony and Warner Bros. It will also include streaming access to full-length movies and kids programming.

In a statement, Comcast describes Streampix as “another step moving TV Everywhere forward by giving customers access to an even greater library of popular choices to watch.” The service will be included with most Xfinity triple-play packages and the Blast! and Blast! Extra video/Internet packages. For users who don’t subscribe to a qualifying bundle, the service will let customers purchase the service for $4.99 a month.

Customers can access movies and TV shows using Xfinity On Demand, XfinityTV.com and the Xfinity TV app. Comcast plans to roll out support for Xbox 360 and Android in the coming months.

The Content Battle Heats Up

How is this different than Comcast’s existing video-on-demand strategy? It’s all about content. Ultimately, the battle taking place between TV Everywhere (and traditional cable) and over-the-top services (such as Netflix) is about content. More specifically, it’s about access to that content.

Critics of the cable TV paradigm often point to price as the main reason that customers cut the cord. It’s true that pricing — especially in a recession — is part of the shift, but I would argue that it’s less about price and more about perceived value. What’s the point of a $150 cable/Internet package if I can only watch on my TV (and must rent a box for each TV set)? Meanwhile, Netflix, Amazon and Hulu offer location-agnostic services and access on a plethora of devices.

One of the reasons that HBO Go has proven to be such a success for the premium network (to the point that once-resistant cable providers have now signed-on) is that it gives customers location-agnostic access to HBO programming, thus making HBO a better value for end users. It answers the value question by giving users the opportunity to consume content from multiple device types and locations.

Cable providers succeed in providing iPad/web access to on-demand and live programming, but many of the best on-demand offerings are still relegated to the set-top box. With Streampix, Comcast is hoping to give users an additional incentive to keep that cable subscription by offering access to streaming content from other devices and locations.

Is This Enough?

Fundamentally, Comcast’s strategy isn’t dissimilar to what Dish Network is doing with its Blockbuster Movie Pass service. It’s giving subscribers additional value and added content. Comcast is going a step further by making its service available on more device types and locations.

Still, is this enough to prevent users from cutting the cord? The lineup of programming that Streampix has secured doesn’t look particularly impressive — it’s nothing that users can’t already get from Netflix or Amazon Prime. But still, as a free add-on, it’s a good start.

Ultimately, Comcast is going to have to play licensor alongside its competitors in the space and this just means that content owners will continue to have more leverage in what they can charge to license content.

But I can’t help but think this might be the start of what could be the true savior of cable TV as we know it: Multi-device/location-agnostic access to live programming and on-demand content across the board.

If cable could manage to get over the fear of letting live TV leave a specific location (as Cablevision limits access to its fabulous Optimum Online app), the average user might not have a reason to cancel cable. After all, if I can watch live, on-demand or catalog content from the office, a Wi-Fi enabled airplane, my parents house in another state or at home, wouldn’t that $150 a month be more worth it?

Only time will tell if Streampix will help Comcast move towards that direction. But at least it’s a start.

Article source: http://mashable.com/2012/02/21/comcast-streampix/

Another day, another Barack Obama Administration totalitarian diktat.

In other words, whatever Obama wants – by any means necessary.

Behold Obama’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  Which last week handed down from on-high a mandate that telecommunications companies ATT, Verizon and Sprint MUST have Board votes on Network Neutrality.

SEC to Telcos: Yes, Net Neutrality is a Significant Policy Issue

The problem for Obama’s SEC is – Net Neutrality isn’t even a LEGAL policy issue.  Because Congress has never passed a law making Net Neutrality actual policy.

The federal government – via the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – first tried to unilaterally impose Net Neutrality in 2008.  And the D.C. Circuit Court in April 2010 unanimously threw the government out on its ear.

Because the FCC “has failed to tie its assertion” of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the power to regulate an Internet provider’s network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Tuesday’s decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of Net neutrality rules–even though Congress has not given the agency permission to do so.

But it didn’t doom Genachowski and Obama’s illegal Net Neutrality intentions.  It didn’t even daunt them.  Just eight months after this stinging rebuke, Obama’s FCC went ahead and illegally jammed through Net Neutrality anyway.

They did so despite the D.C. Circuit Court’s unanimous ruling.  And they did so despite the fact that more than 300 members of the then still-Democrat-Majority Congress – the body charged with giving the FCC Net Neutrality authority – were for months in advance telling them not to.

—–

Verizon, MetroPCS and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli are all now suing to undo this particular Obama power grab.  In the same D.C. Circuit Court that threw out the FCC’s first illegal attempt.

There are very few things judges and courts like less than summarily dispatching a case – and then again having to hear the same case.  So the FCC’s Illegal Attempt II will most likely suffer the exact same fate as Illegal Attempt I.

The FCC has been all along hedging its Net Neutrality bet – by illegally jamming merging companies with Net Neutrality mandates as a condition of the government approving said mergers.

Which – on the 2010 Comcast-NBCU merger – even the uber-Leftist Washington Post thought was a bad idea:

FCC officials should resist calls by some merger opponents to impose “net neutrality” principles on Comcast’s Internet component.

Obama’s FCC – shocker – did it anyway.

(Why private companies that have reached mutually agreeable business arrangements must then seek government approval is one excellent question.  Why the government can then illegally make up laws out of whole cloth and stick these companies with them as approval conditions is another.)

—–

So what Obama’s SEC is now doing on Net Neutrality is just and yet another illegal power play by Obama’s Administration.

Overrunning the private Board practices of private companies – and mandating they vote on something no government agency has any authority to impose.

Uber-Leftist policy – by any means necessary.

The Obama Way.

Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|

Tags: 2012 Election, broadband, crony capitalism, crony socialism, Economics, FCC, fcc chairman julius genachowski, FCC Diversity Czar, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Spending, fiat, Google, Internet, Mark Lloyd, media marxists, net neutrality, network neutrality, News, Obama, pipa, Politics, president barack obama, protect ip act, Regulation, Robert McChesney, Science, SOPA, stop online piracy act, Technology, wireless, World Wide Web
Posted Feb 20th 2012 at 4:05 am in Exclusives |

43246431 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fbiggovernment.com%2Fsmotley%2F2012%2F02%2F20%2Fobama-forcing-private-companies-to-have-board-votes-on-illegal-policy%2FObama+Forcing+Private+Companies+to+Have+Board+Votes+on+Illegal+Policy2012-02-20+12%3A05%3A30Seton+Motleyhttp%3A%2F%2Fbiggovernment.com%2F%3Fp%3D432464

Article source: http://biggovernment.com/smotley/2012/02/20/obama-forcing-private-companies-to-have-board-votes-on-illegal-policy/

Article source: http://netneutrality.ws/2012/02/20/obama-forcing-private-companies-to-have-board-votes-on-illegal/

Article source: http://netneutrality.ws/2012/02/22/obama-forcing-private-companies-to-have-board/

Unable to destroy the Internet’s spread of conservative thought and information through the worst Congress in history, FCC regulators for the Obama administration have ignored the will of the people and the new Congress by arbitrarily imposing vague net neutrality regulations. The FCC, which used the corrupt methods from the passage of ObamaCare as its model, deliberately kept the proposed regulations away from the prying eyes of the public while also violating a court order halting its previous attempt to regulate the Internet.

Despite its lack of authority to do so, the FCC has been trying to impose its so-called “net neutrality” regulations to restrict the ability of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to manage network transmission. Even more overtly in its raw overreach for power, the FCC’s own website was taken down for “maintenance” during the four days prior to imposing the regulations, preventing public access to the more than 1,900 pages of comments it had already received. Only in Obama’s world does government refusal to provide public access to the government, willful disregard of the judicial system, and hiding behind make-believe system maintenance qualify as fairness, openness and transparency. The practical effect merely tells the country that leftists so fear allowing citizen participation in government that they do everything they can to keep citizens out.

Advertisement

Article source: http://theperpetualview.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/regulatory-commissars-fcc-moves-ahead-with-net-neutrality/

Net neutrality redux 2012

February 21, 2012 at 23:50

This article originally appeared in MultiChannel News: Voices on November 1, 2006 and later on this Web site.  I am reposting it now, as nearly all of the same arguments remain true more than five years later.  Net neutrality coupled with “content neutrality” can save the Internet from a crippled corporate-only future.  This will only happen if its users truly understand what they have before it is taken away.  For more from this blog on the subjects of Net neutrally, including a great radio interview on the subject with UC Santa Barbara communications researcher KK Holland, visit the Net neutrality category of this site. To learn more about content neutrality and corporate media abuses by companies like ESPN, read this blog post: A response to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s net neutrality announcement.

Net Neutrality is a topic that has crossed my desk several times this year.  Whatever the outcome of this debate,  it has the potential to be as defining an event for our culture,  as the advent of the ‘net was ten years ago.

Many of my counterparts at independent cable companies and large MSO’s will have a variety of opinions on the matter of controlling IP traffic on their networks.  Opponents of net neutrality (that folks who believe that the operators of an IP network should have the right to prioritize traffic) will argue that as the entity that has invested in the network they should have the right to a larger share of profits from commercial IP traffic and to protect the MSO’s content aggregation monopoly with individual customers.   On the other hand, proponents of net neutrality believe that all data packets should be created equal across the Internet.

At first glance it may appear easy to choose sides as an operator. MSO’s do not want to give others a free ride on their networks.  However the value of high-speed internet service is based on the existence of an open and free network and a compromise of such a design might in fact compromise the value and integrity of the current world-wide interconnection of data networks we know as The Internet.

The Internet was founded on the principle of public service and education.  It is only until more recently that its commercial potential has been realized.  This potential, however, is predicated on the fact that it is an open and free method of communication.   If an ISP chooses to control the flow of information,  it in fact could be faced with tremendous public backlash and be branded by consumers as a network with the equivalent of a radar speed trap – a virtual turnpike to be avoided for a faster freeway route.

Should other ISP’s choose to choke competitive products on their national networks it could be an opportunity for cable operators to capitalize on the market value of providing a true open information freeway.

Don’t misunderstand my position.  I accept that an MSO should have the right to segment the cable IP data network for its services.  That is VoIP lifeline telephony should not be compromised by file-sharing and internet downloads.  However ISP’s and MSO’s who choose to oppose net neutrality should consider not only the negative PR but also the long-term effects of the value of the Internet as a product, if they begin to selectively control throughput for select content providers.

Limiting smaller content providers’ ability to reach a consumer via a particular ISP, in fact, could stifle the very explosive growth of the Internet which has made HSI service so ubiquitous and profitable.   Perhaps the best solution is defining a more flexible throughput speed tier structure.  As ‘net growth continues, the need for speed is bringing   down wholesale prices, making upgrades more affordable than ever. Considering that HSI as a product is cheap to offer as compared to TV, investments should be in the infrastructure to provide the best uninhibited connections.

Cable operators of all sizes should seize this as an opportunity to provide premium speeds to those consumers who are willing to pay extra.  Going forward premium speed offerings without content restrictions can be made with excellent profit margins and even better PR.

The real value of the Internet to the consumer is the raging changes that happen in the immediate world of instantaneous communication.  Remember, YouTube and MySpace weren’t created by their current corporate owners, they were acquired.  Would they have existed at all without net neutrality?

Cable can…force a few “preferred vendors” to pay for access to your customers and generate the uncreative and un-stimulated toll-road model that doomed AOL’s “Main Menu” of preferred services five years ago.  Or provide a lightning fast freeway and become the consumers’ choice for a high-speed connection.

<!–Share this

Article source: http://www.maaia.com/levi/2012/02/21/net-neutrality-redux-2012/

But the plan has already drawn detractors.

Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.) said in a statement that the plan “leaves out essential elements that should be a part of FCC action to ensure a free and open Internet.”

Markey is senior member of the House telecommunications subcommittee, and introduced the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act” last year.

Markey said that the plan’s lack of network neutrality principles for wireless networks is troubling, while its lack of any mention about protecting privacy is “a glaring omission.”

“Rather than a proposal from two corporate giants, a public process at the FCC is needed to ensure the preservation of an unfettered Internet ecosystem that will continue to be an indispensable platform for innovation,” Markey said.

A handful of advocacy groups including Free Press, MoveOn.org Civic Action and others also issued criticism of the Internet traffic proposal, saying in a statement that Google and Verizon “are attacking the Internet while claiming to preserve it.”

“They are promising net neutrality only for a certain part of the Internet, one that they’ll likely stop investing in. But they are also paving the way for a new ‘Internet’ via fiber and wireless phones where net neutrality will not apply and corporations can pick and choose which sites people can easily view on their phones or any other Internet device using these networks,” the groups said.

In their editorial, the CEOs of Google and Verizon counter that “Internet service providers should also have a fair amount of flexibility to manage their networks and the opportunity to provide additional services – such as telework applications, health monitoring services or optimized gaming.”

The CEOs also argue that the wireless marketplace “should be allowed to develop further before applying a new set of rules.”

Verizon and other operators have long argued that they should be free to manage their networks in a way that maintains the flow of traffic — even if that means squelching particularly bandwidth-heavy applications, such as peer-to-peer sharing and video services.

But Google, Yahoo Inc. (US:YHOO), Microsoft Corp. (US:MSFT) and others have countered that granting operators the ability to pick and choose which services or applications to block could unfairly stifle competition.

Scott Cleland, president of consulting firm Precursor LLC and a long-time critic of Google, said in a statement that negotiations between the Internet search giant and Verizon are a positive sign that industry players are willing to negotiate a compromise.

Cleland wrote that “Google’s many major concessions are an important reality check for the FCC,” and “fringe” groups demanding “a heavy-handed edict from the FCC.”

Article source: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2010-08-10/industries/30744504_1_google-and-verizon-internet-freedom-preservation-act-network-neutrality

Article source: http://netneutrality.ws/2012/02/21/google-verizon-web-traffic-plan-draws-criticism/

Article source: http://netneutrality.ws/2012/02/21/google-verizon-web-traffic-plan-draws-criticism-net-neutrality/

Another day, another Barack Obama Administration totalitarian diktat.

In other words, whatever Obama wants – by any means necessary.

Behold Obama’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  Which last week handed down from on-high a mandate that telecommunications companies ATT, Verizon and Sprint MUST have Board votes on Network Neutrality.

SEC to Telcos: Yes, Net Neutrality is a Significant Policy Issue

The problem for Obama’s SEC is – Net Neutrality isn’t even a LEGAL policy issue.  Because Congress has never passed a law making Net Neutrality actual policy.

The federal government – via the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – first tried to unilaterally impose Net Neutrality in 2008.  And the D.C. Circuit Court in April 2010 unanimously threw the government out on its ear.

Because the FCC “has failed to tie its assertion” of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the power to regulate an Internet provider’s network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Tuesday’s decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of Net neutrality rules–even though Congress has not given the agency permission to do so.

But it didn’t doom Genachowski and Obama’s illegal Net Neutrality intentions.  It didn’t even daunt them.  Just eight months after this stinging rebuke, Obama’s FCC went ahead and illegally jammed through Net Neutrality anyway.

They did so despite the D.C. Circuit Court’s unanimous ruling.  And they did so despite the fact that more than 300 members of the then still-Democrat-Majority Congress – the body charged with giving the FCC Net Neutrality authority – were for months in advance telling them not to.

—–

Verizon, MetroPCS and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli are all now suing to undo this particular Obama power grab.  In the same D.C. Circuit Court that threw out the FCC’s first illegal attempt.

There are very few things judges and courts like less than summarily dispatching a case – and then again having to hear the same case.  So the FCC’s Illegal Attempt II will most likely suffer the exact same fate as Illegal Attempt I.

The FCC has been all along hedging its Net Neutrality bet – by illegally jamming merging companies with Net Neutrality mandates as a condition of the government approving said mergers.

Which – on the 2010 Comcast-NBCU merger – even the uber-Leftist Washington Post thought was a bad idea:

FCC officials should resist calls by some merger opponents to impose “net neutrality” principles on Comcast’s Internet component.

Obama’s FCC – shocker – did it anyway.

(Why private companies that have reached mutually agreeable business arrangements must then seek government approval is one excellent question.  Why the government can then illegally make up laws out of whole cloth and stick these companies with them as approval conditions is another.)

—–

So what Obama’s SEC is now doing on Net Neutrality is just and yet another illegal power play by Obama’s Administration.

Overrunning the private Board practices of private companies – and mandating they vote on something no government agency has any authority to impose.

Uber-Leftist policy – by any means necessary.

The Obama Way.

Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|

Tags: 2012 Election, broadband, crony capitalism, crony socialism, Economics, FCC, fcc chairman julius genachowski, FCC Diversity Czar, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Spending, fiat, Google, Internet, Mark Lloyd, media marxists, net neutrality, network neutrality, News, Obama, pipa, Politics, president barack obama, protect ip act, Regulation, Robert McChesney, Science, SOPA, stop online piracy act, Technology, wireless, World Wide Web
Posted Feb 20th 2012 at 4:05 am in Exclusives |

43246431 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fbiggovernment.com%2Fsmotley%2F2012%2F02%2F20%2Fobama-forcing-private-companies-to-have-board-votes-on-illegal-policy%2FObama+Forcing+Private+Companies+to+Have+Board+Votes+on+Illegal+Policy2012-02-20+12%3A05%3A30Seton+Motleyhttp%3A%2F%2Fbiggovernment.com%2F%3Fp%3D432464

Article source: http://biggovernment.com/smotley/2012/02/20/obama-forcing-private-companies-to-have-board-votes-on-illegal-policy/

Article source: http://netneutrality.ws/2012/02/20/obama-forcing-private-companies-to-have-board-votes-on-illegal/

Share

Tweet

Pin It

(NaturalNews) You probably already know not to trust what the news media says about big corporations, which after all are their owners — for example, Disney owns ABC, and General Electric holds stake in NBC. Now Harvard law professor and political activist Larry Lessig has released a Venn diagram that strikingly demonstrates the close connections between U.S. media and government.

See the diagram yourself at:

http://www.naturalnews.com/images/Federal-Government-Corporation-Overlaps-Media.gif

The most illustrative name on the diagram is that of Meredith Baker, currently a high-ranking lobbyist for Comcast-NBC. As a young woman, Baker interned at the State Department under then-Secretary of State James A. Baker III (who would later become her father-in-law). She later became a lawyer, specializing in corporate law. When her former State Department boss, Steven Barry, took a job at the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, she followed him and secured a position as a lobbyist (“director of congressional affairs”). This was followed by a job at a telecommunications firm and another lobbying position.

Baker worked on George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign, and Bush subsequently appointed her first to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, then to deputy assistant secretary of the Commerce Department.

In October 2007, while Baker was at the Commerce Department, the Associated Press reported that Comcast “actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.” The FCC responded by opening an investigation into these practices, eventually concluding that Comcast’s practices were unreasonable and ordering the company to desist.

During the conflict, Baker openly supported Comcast and adopted the cable and telephone industry’s position opposing network neutrality. When President Obama appointed her to the FCC in 2009, she aggressively pursued this position. Writing about her time at the FCC, the Associated Press characterized Baker as “a reliable pro-business voice who frequently expressed concern that the agency was imposing unnecessary and onerous regulations on phone and cable companies.”

During Baker’s FCC tenure, the commission was called upon to approve a proposed merger of Comcast and NBC. The merger was approved in January 2011, with Baker voting in the affirmative. In March, Baker complained that the FCC had taken too long to review the merger and placed too many conditions on Comcast. Two months later, Baker announced that she would be prematurely leaving her FCC post to accept a job as Comcast’s “senior vice president of governmental affairs for NBC Universal” — in other words, as a lobbyist.

A Revolving Door

Baker’s story may be among the most obvious, but the “revolving door” between the government and media goes far beyond any one case. Numerous White House press secretaries and communications directors have come from (and later returned to) jobs in the media, raising the question of how critically they can be expected to report on the people they formed such close personal and professional relationships with.

Politicians have also leveraged their careers into lucrative media jobs. For example, Evan Bayh served first as Secretary of State and later as Governor of Indiana, before going on to represent the state in the U.S. Senate. Months after leaving the Senate, he took a paid position as a Fox News contributor. Rick Santorum, who spent 12 years as a U.S. senator for Pennsylvania, took a job as a Fox News contributor the month after leaving office. Now he is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.techdirt.com

http://fairwhistleblower.ca

http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Baker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Bayh

Have comments on this article? Post them here:

 people have commented on this article.

Related Articles:

• Who controls your mind? (opinion)

• New study finds social media is more addictive than cigarettes and alcohol

• USA censorship on the rise as YouTube censors video critical of government; Fox News pulls Judge Napolitano’s Freedom Watch

• Big brother now spies on journalists, keeps records of online activity

• We are all hippies now

• In wake of Giffords shooting, the mere act of questioning the government now being demonized

Take Action: Support NaturalNews.com

Email this article to a friend

Share this article on: NewsVine | digg | del.icio.us

Permalink to this article:
http://www.naturalnews.com/034994_media_government_corruption.html
Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link.

Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):
Why you can’t trust what the media say about our government

Article source: http://www.irishtimez.com/2012/02/why-you-cant-trust-what-the-media-say-about-our-government/

Article source: http://netneutrality.ws/2012/02/17/why-you-cant-trust-what-the-media-say-about-our-government/

Article source: http://netneutrality.ws/2012/02/21/why-you-cant-trust-what-the-media-say-about-our/

Article source: http://netneutrality.ws/2012/02/21/why-you-cant-trust-what-the-media-say-about-our-net-neutrality/