Fox news is not banned in Canada; the application to broadcast was denied initially in 2004 as it was improperly filed. Once it was properly filed it was approved. It was not blocked because it was dangerous to the government. It was not blocked because Bill OReilly has beaver/loofah fantasies. It was blocked because someone was too lazy to actually RTFM; which is pretty much the same situation you find yourself in for bringing to point up in the first place. Canada does require a certain percentage of Canadian programming. Why you ask? It should be obvious. The concentration of media ownership in any given area is highly dangerous to free speech; and rigorously protected in the United States until the Reagan presidency, where the rules were steadily eroded.
AOL is a corporation. Not a single entity. The AOL example is of one of many cited as an occurrence of the malfeasance shown by corporations in the deliberate obstruction of free speech. Rather than whether a dissenting opinion, or seek redress through the courts, they acted unilaterally, and illegally. Picture UPS stopping a package of DVDs before they reach your door because someone in management does not particularly like anime.
E-mail does cost money. I suppose that you could, in a moment of Abbey Hoffman like inspiration gain completely free e-mail; provided that you use someone elses computer, internet connection, web-space, etc. It still isnt free, you just arent paying for it directly. In some cases this is paid for by advertisers, or services connected to the e-mail service. The costs are hidden, rather than doled out stamp by stamp like postage.
You (by you I am assuming you are referring to the cable/companies) are paying for the bandwidth and equipment. That is correct. You are then leasing them out to different groups. This could be a company that hosts a website and pays you for the bandwidth that they use. This could be a home user that connects to the internet, and pays you for the bandwidth that you use. Your water analogy simply put, does not hold water; as both you and your neighbor pay for that usage separately. Picture this one. You contract with the water company for water. The water company decides, without consulting you, that you should be getting Campbells Chunky Soup in your pipes because Campbells pays them a great deal of money. So the next time you turn on your shower, you get a unique shampoo that eats like a meal. The role of the cable companies is to provide the pipe not to decide the priority of what goes through the pipe.
Finally your previous comments about dial up versus cable are pretty much moot as they are ultimately democratic. All of the media in the pipe that you buy comes at the same speed; regardless of its source. Under the proposed legislation; the cable/dial up company decides what comes faster or slower. That is a rather significant difference.
AOL is a corporation. Not a single entity. The AOL example is of one of many cited as an occurrence of the malfeasance shown by corporations in the deliberate obstruction of free speech. Rather than whether a dissenting opinion, or seek redress through the courts, they acted unilaterally, and illegally. Picture UPS stopping a package of DVDs before they reach your door because someone in management does not particularly like anime.
E-mail does cost money. I suppose that you could, in a moment of Abbey Hoffman like inspiration gain completely free e-mail; provided that you use someone elses computer, internet connection, web-space, etc. It still isnt free, you just arent paying for it directly. In some cases this is paid for by advertisers, or services connected to the e-mail service. The costs are hidden, rather than doled out stamp by stamp like postage.
You (by you I am assuming you are referring to the cable/companies) are paying for the bandwidth and equipment. That is correct. You are then leasing them out to different groups. This could be a company that hosts a website and pays you for the bandwidth that they use. This could be a home user that connects to the internet, and pays you for the bandwidth that you use. Your water analogy simply put, does not hold water; as both you and your neighbor pay for that usage separately. Picture this one. You contract with the water company for water. The water company decides, without consulting you, that you should be getting Campbells Chunky Soup in your pipes because Campbells pays them a great deal of money. So the next time you turn on your shower, you get a unique shampoo that eats like a meal. The role of the cable companies is to provide the pipe not to decide the priority of what goes through the pipe.
Finally your previous comments about dial up versus cable are pretty much moot as they are ultimately democratic. All of the media in the pipe that you buy comes at the same speed; regardless of its source. Under the proposed legislation; the cable/dial up company decides what comes faster or slower. That is a rather significant difference.