backtop


Print 153 comment(s) - last by LoweredExpecta.. on Aug 22 at 5:05 AM


The RIAA and radio broadcasters are considering a plan that would ban sales of cell phones without a FM tuner from the U.S.  (Source: GraniteGrok)

The coalition is convinced that Congress will obey their edict, should they give one.  (Source: OMB Watch)
Why let the free market decide when the technology is so essential?

Whether it's suing dead people or simply suing living ones for millions of dollars for illegally downloading a few tracks, media watchdog the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) seems to gravitate towards controversy like a moth to a flame.  The divisive organization is back at it again, this time demanding that the U.S. government impose a drastic mandate on cell phone production.

The RIAA will look to introduce a provision into Congress's pending legislation, the Performance Rights Act, which would mandate that all cell phones be built with FM radio receivers.

The seemingly bizarre mandate is the keystone of an elaborate game of financial chess between radio broadcasters and the RIAA, with the implied assumption being that Congress will do whatever the pair say.  

The RIAA wants to cut the longstanding copyright exemption that allows radio stations to pay less than full performance fees to labels and artists (satellite radio and webcasters, by contrast, pay the full fee).  The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) opposes this measure, but is reportedly near a deal with RIAA-led alliance musicFIRST.

Under the deal radio stations would agree to pay $100M USD more to labels and artists, but in exchange the RIAA would back the broadcasters plan to force 
all cell phones or other mobile devices in the U.S. to feature FM tuners.  Speaking with ArsTechnica, musicFIRST commented, "As regards the chip, this is a key issue for the radio industry.  musicFIRST, too, likes FM chips in cell phones, PDAs, etc. It gives consumers access to more music choices."

The Consumer Electronics Association, which represents the key players of the electronics industry, is ardently opposed to the plan which it says seeks to impose damaging restrictions on the free market.  CEA president Gary Shapiro, "The backroom scheme of the [National Association of Broadcasters] and RIAA to have Congress mandate broadcast radios in portable devices, including mobile phones, is the height of absurdity [and is] not in our national interest."

The NAB says no deal is finalized, but NAB's Dennis Wharton comments, "However, if there is a decision made by the Board of Directors to go forward and seek legislation, including radio-enabled chips in mobile devices in possible legislation seems to us to be a reasonable idea."

They say the CEA's complaints about market regulation are just sour grapes, commenting, "It's no surprise that CEA opposes this, since trade associations generally always oppose new rules. CEA also opposed DTV tuners in digital television sets; the FCC decided that having DTV tuners in TV sets was a good thing, and passed a rule that gave consumers access to local TV stations on DTV sets."

"We would argue that having radio capability on cell phones and other mobile devices would be a great thing, particularly from a public safety perspective. There are few if any technologies that match the reliability of broadcast radio in terms of getting lifeline information to the masses."

So is mandating radio tuners in cell phones the same thing as mandating DTV tuners in TV sets?  The RIAA and NAB seem convinced it is.  And they seem equally convinced that Congress will do their bidding, should they choose to roll out a finalized version of their market regulation scheme.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What?
By Spivonious on 8/17/2010 4:32:47 PM , Rating: 5
I bet Congress will slip this in under the "interstate commerce" clause.

I bet John Adams is really happy that the federal government would even be considering mandating items to be in luxury items.




RE: What?
By Quadrillity on 8/17/2010 4:40:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I bet John Adams is really happy that the federal government would even be considering mandating items to be in luxury items.

I fully agree with that. But that's why we have things called civil wars and revolutions :D Too much power, waay too much.


RE: What?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: What?
By seamonkey79 on 8/17/2010 5:34:26 PM , Rating: 4
I'm a state's rights person, but really... how could the American Civil War have pushed back state's rights by 100 years or more when the nation wasn't even 100 years old at the time?


RE: What?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/17/2010 5:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
I meant into the future, obviously. LOL come on man..

Or hell just take out the 100 years and say it "pushed them back", will that work for you? Obviously the amount of time we were held back is speculative, but I believe had the Confederacy won we would have a more robust and concrete limitation on Federal powers and the rights of States today.

And before some idiot jumps in and says it, because I know someone will, NO. I do not mean pro-slavery. Despite what your public school teachers told you, that wasn't the issue.


RE: What?
By iwanttobehef on 8/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/17/2010 6:07:05 PM , Rating: 5
Umm wrong?

Lincoln ushered in a highly centralized Federal Government with diminished States sovereignty. Holding that the Federal Government was in violation of the terms of the Constitution, South Carolina and several other States peacefully and democratically convene their legislators to decide on a withdraw. They voted for succession.

Whether it was slavery, tariffs, or a redefinition of Federal powers matters little. The question of whether we live in a voluntary government or a compulsory one, enforced at gunpoint, was answered with the death and maiming of almost a million Americans from 1861 to 1865.

When Abraham Lincoln launched his military invasion of the Southern States to prevent their peaceful and democratic assertion of independence, he ushered in a radically different Union than the one the Founders intended.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Lincoln was a tyrant. The south didn't start a war, HE did. They peacefully and democratically succeeded without a shot being fired, as was their right under the Constitution. And those rights were trampled, regardless of how romanticized we've made the outcome.


"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government..."


-Thomas Jefferson
The Declaration of Independence


RE: What?
By iwanttobehef on 8/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/17/2010 6:51:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Lincoln wasn't even in office when this peaceful convention was convened ( Dec 20 1860 ). Most of the south succeeded before he became President on April 4. So please tell me about the highly centralized federal gov't that lincoln ushered in before he was President?


They threatened to succeed if he became President because they knew what he would do. I think the question of whether or not Lincoln was for centralizing Government power was answered when he declared war on his own people. Killed 60,000 civilians. Indiscriminately burned entire cities to the ground, men women and children. Suspended habius corpus, suspended the rights of a free press by shutting down papers and news he didn't agree with. And so on and so forth.

Besides that, he RAN on high "protective" tariffs, tax funded subsidies to favored business interests, and an aggressive funding of "internal improvements" (damn this guy reminds me of Obama). He sought to bring to fruition what Hamilton and Clay could not. A highly centralized fed with limited State sovereignty.

He was elected President with less than 40% of the popular vote.


RE: What?
By iwanttobehef on 8/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/17/2010 7:15:01 PM , Rating: 5
That's a cheap shot. I'm from the South, yes. But I was taught the same as everyone else, falsely, that the Civil War was about freeing the slaves. That Lincoln was a hero. And that the good guys won.

When I grew up and was able to research and form my own opinions, it became pretty obvious that what I was taught was over simplified at best, doctored history at worst.

If you want to debate me on the facts or opinions, fine. But don't give me that redneck disgruntled Southerner bit. I'll not stand for that.


RE: What?
By YashBudini on 8/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 8/17/2010 9:43:57 PM , Rating: 4
Make that two drinks. Your posts here are a perfect example of the rating system here being "I don't agree with what you said" more than "You're not right".


RE: What?
By cruisin3style on 8/18/2010 2:30:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it seems to be less of a "your comments are not right" system as it is a "your comments are not right-leaning" system.

Down, Down, Down we go...


RE: What?
By jabber on 8/18/2010 8:35:11 AM , Rating: 5
Hey dont worry about doctored history, you get used to it.

If I watch a modern US made WW2 movie or documentary on WW2 then apparently the UK/Canada/Australia/India/Poland/France/Italy etc. were not involved whatsoever. Never get a mention.

WW2 was fought purely by the USA/Germany and Japan.

Quite what went on from 1939 to 1942 I dont know.

Something I guess. Happens all the time.


RE: What?
By EricMartello on 8/21/2010 4:30:16 AM , Rating: 2
In as few words as possible:

- Southern states were the top cotton producers.

- At that time, cotton was a HOT commodity.

- Plantation owners relied heavily on slave labor.

- Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, which meant drastic changes to the current southern lifestyle - which was very upper-class for anyone who wasn't a slave.

- When Lincoln came into office and made good on his word, the south had already seceded from the union, but Lincoln did not recognize that and considered them part of the union.

- The civil war began, not so much as a war about freeing slaves or ending slavery so much as it was retaining the United part in the United States.

- The north had far more resources, a better infrastructure and better military tactics which ultimately wore down the south and forced them into submission.


RE: What?
By Lastfreethinker on 8/18/2010 1:00:47 PM , Rating: 3
I am sorry but if you actually studied history and understood the motives behind the withdrawal from the Union of the United States, you could not say they did it to protect their right to slaves alone. The United States was a purely volunteer organize BEFORE the civil war, AFTER the civil war you joined for life. The Federal Government has become what the founding fathers never wanted. There is far too much power in the Federal Government. For example take the Federal Governments Health Care Tax (This is how they are defending in court) The federal government was only to help grease the wheels of commerce not tell people what they had to have. States most of their rights after the Civil war, not just the south.

The north was getting industry, and most of the rail production at the time, when Lincoln was running for president everyone understood that the North would again be getting the favors and the economic advantage. The south couldn't stand for it and decided that if they weren't going to be treated fairly they would withdraw and start their own Union. In fact slavery was not an issue until the emancipation proclamation, which was only a further attempt to destabilize the economy of the southern states. The issue of the slavery has been used a kind of scare crow to hide the real motivations of the civil war. It is easy to distill the war into a single cause it hides things and make the war easier to handle when you think it was for a truly good cause, not about taking freedoms away.


RE: What?
By Lastfreethinker on 8/18/2010 1:02:12 PM , Rating: 2
"States most of their rights after the Civil war, not just the south."

Sorry that should read

States lost most of their rights after the Civil war, not just the south.


RE: What?
By elgueroloco on 8/19/2010 2:46:21 AM , Rating: 2
From the Mississippi Declaration of Secession:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declara...

From the South Carolina Declaration:
"These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burdening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."

http://www.civilwarinteractive.com/DocsSCDecOfSecc...

Though S. Carolina puts up a huge smokescreen at the beginning of their declaration about states' rights, the constitution, etc, when they get down to it, all of their grievances regard slavery. Mississippi didn't even bother with the smokescreen. So don't tell me that it was not really about slavery. The words of the seceding states themselves contradict such an argument.

I'm all for states' rights, and I actually think states should have a right to secede if the Fed becomes tyrannical, since this gov't was founded on the concept of gov't by consent of the governed. But let's not deceive ourselves about why the south left.

P.S. Lincoln invaded *after* Ft. Sumter was attacked by the CSA.



RE: What?
By clovell on 8/19/2010 11:26:42 AM , Rating: 2
Oh geeze man - if you read all that and conclude the civil war was about slavery, you're blind. It's pretty obvious the civil war was fought because the entire southern economy, which was based on slavery, was being threatened.


RE: What?
By elgueroloco on 8/20/2010 12:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
So, in other words, when it comes down to it, it's still about slavery.

The south was insistent on carrying on an economic system that had as its base the exploitation of other human beings as property/livestock. The north wanted them to stop, and they didn't want to. They did not want to find a different, moral way to run their economy. They wanted slaves, so they seceded.

Slice it up any way you want to, it was still about slavery.


RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 8/17/2010 7:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the burning of cities was quite discriminate. Atlanta and Savannah were targeted specifically because of how vital they were to the Confederates. Not only that, but it effectively split the South in two. If I had to compare it I'd say it was like dropping the A bombs on Japan. It brought a quicker end to the war and may have actually saved a lot of lives.

Was Abe the best president? Not by a long shot IMO, but he certainly brought our nation together whether you like it or not. Having the right to secede from the Union was a horrible idea. It might sound good in theory, but so does communism and socialism. In practice they all suck. Just think about it today if states could secede from the US. You'd have states going their own way all over the place. It'd be anarchy.

There is a reason we don't base presidents just on popular vote, especially now. Doing what's right/needed is rarely popular. Don't know how it would have turned out if Abe didn't win, but it'd probably be a lot different than it is now.


RE: What?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/17/2010 7:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't know how it would have turned out if Abe didn't win, but it'd probably be a lot different than it is now.


Oh I'm quite sure it would be too.


RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 8/17/2010 9:51:47 PM , Rating: 5
He brought the nation together? By destroying half of it?

What he did was change the nation from being a nation of united states with a central government to a nation of a central government with states that look to it for what they're allowed to. Exactly the opposite of what the founders intended. Before the Civil War it was "the United States are". Afterwards it was "the United States is".

Had Lincoln not attacked the South, the two sides would likely have worked out a compromise and the Southern states would have rejoined the union. This was even their intention. Lincoln chose war.


RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 8/17/2010 10:23:22 PM , Rating: 2
I highly doubt that, but it's not like we can go find out.


RE: What?
By lagitup on 8/17/2010 7:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
"War is hell but it's good for business. Let's end this quickly before we grow too fond of it."


RE: What?
By cruisin3style on 8/18/2010 2:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think it is important to note that the first attack was by the Confederacy on Fort Sumter(?) if I'm remembering right. I don't remember much else about it though so I can't speak to the events leading up to it.

I just thought I'd comment with that because you make it sound like Lincoln just decided to declare war on the South with no provocation, and I didn't think that was entirely accurate


RE: What?
By nshoe on 8/20/2010 12:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
Of course Ft. Sumter was attacked because the fort was in South Carolina, who considered themselves independent of the union, and the union refused to leave. It should also be noted that the total loss of life as a result of the engagement was zero.

Yes, the battle which "provoked" the civil war was fought on Confederate soil, with no loss of life.


RE: What?
By OUits on 8/17/2010 6:10:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Without slavery there would have been no leverage to politicize and sway the public into accepting a war.

Fixed.


RE: What?
By Spuke on 8/17/2010 6:18:27 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Without slavery there would have been no war.
The Civil War was not fought over slavery. It was fought to keep the South from succeeding.


RE: What?
By knutjb on 8/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: What?
By treesloth on 8/17/2010 6:46:51 PM , Rating: 5
I just want to point out that the words are "secede" and "secession", not "succeed" and "succession". Thank you. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.


RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 8/17/2010 6:58:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad someone pointed it out. I was thinking I was crazy for a while.


RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 8/17/2010 9:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed


RE: What?
By nolisi on 8/17/2010 6:47:43 PM , Rating: 5
The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle. The reason that the Confederates claim to have seceded may have been States rights, and it may have encompassed a series of issues (taxation on imports, the right of citizens to take their home states rights into other states), but slavery and the economic viability of southern slave owners was the core of the "State rights" argument and became the tipping point of secession. It's no coincidence that practically every state in the Confederacy was one which permitted slaves- with the limitations on Federal powers, the southern States could allow slave ownership of plantations to continue.


RE: What?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/17/2010 7:09:59 PM , Rating: 4
That still doesn't change the fact that Lincoln was a tryant. Who, in an unprecedented fashion, brutally and willfully dedicated the army, navy and the entire U.S treasury to killing almost a million Americans. Including 60,000+ civilian deaths. Women and children. Entire Southern cities burned to the ground, their populations indiscriminately bombed by artillery and gunships.

A Democratic solution to the South's succession wasn't even attempted! He declared war, flat out.

"But the Union, in any event, will not be dissolved. We don't want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it we won't let you . With the purse and sword, the army and navy and treasury, in our hands and at our command, you could not do it. All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug, nothing but folly. We do not want to dissolve the Union; you shall not .
"

-Abraham Lincoln

Does this sound like someone concerned about slaves to you, or simply responding to the threat of reduced Federal power and the formation of the Confederacy? These are the words of a tyrant, clear as day. The Constitution was about forming a voluntary government, not a compulsory one. We wont let you? You shall not?

Well I guess he sure showed them...


RE: What?
By iwanttobehef on 8/17/2010 7:36:47 PM , Rating: 1
A Democratic solution to the South's succession wasn't even attempted! He declared war, flat out.

Once again your history is revisionist. Fort Sumter was attacked before Lincoln became President. Seems to me the south wasn't intrested in a democratic solution either and then had it handed to them.

To Quote from Mississippi's declaration of secession

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."

Sounds like States Rights to me. Unlike Lincoln's statements which had to be couched in political terms this is from a legal document stating Mississippi's true intents and beliefs.


RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 8/17/2010 9:56:59 PM , Rating: 1
Lincoln had already been elected. That he had not taken office yet in no way takes away from the fact that his election was the turning point because of what he stated his goals were in his campaign. Goals that would have seriously hurt the South economically.

The first Civil War was fought over economics. The second Civil War will be fought over economics. Now we just have to wait and see when and where it starts. But at this point its all but unavoidable.


RE: What?
By iwanttobehef on 8/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By YashBudini on 8/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By amanojaku on 8/17/2010 11:38:45 PM , Rating: 5
I don't know what research you were referring to in your other post, but clearly it wasn't enough.

The United States became independent sometime around 1776, and adopted the Constitution sometime around 1787. The Bill of Rights clocked in around 1791.

Between 1787 and 1861 all of the states voluntarily joined the Union. Which means they gave up independence and accepted the Federal Government of the United States as their leadership. Without question or legal right of secession. I'd use an example and say "would you let such-and-such state secede today?", but you would say "yes" because you hate it. Like: Alaska? ("f! the polar bears and Palin!") California? ("f! the liberals!") Mississippi? ("f! the poor people!") etc... That's just the kind of guy you are.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/US...

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas seceded because Lincoln was voted in as president. Funny thing is he got 40% of the vote against three other candidates and whooped them by a large margin. Even if they added up their votes percentage wise and won the popular vote they would have lost the electoral college vote. And he wasn't even on the ballots at Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, or Texas, and South Carolina didn't have a popular vote.

And Lincoln didn't declare war flat out. There was an attempt at negotiation, and it failed.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Conference_of_1...
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/peace.asp

Additionally, Lincoln was no fool. Negotiating with the south was an admission of it having a legitimate government, which it did not. He made it a point of stating that, and several other governments throughout the world refused to acknowledge the south as having a government, as well.

And the south started the war. Remember the battle of Fort Sumter?

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/sc001....

As to the women and children... Can you point to a war that did not have civilian casualties? I don't defend what happened, but I swear, the minute people commit to killing each other there's rarely any room for humanity. And it's not like countries are designed to withstand wars. They're designed to house people. It's only natural that the battlefield would eventually extend to civilian areas, and some people are too dumb to leave their homes. That's why we should strive to be non-aggressors, and only fight to defend ourselves. Which is what the north did. The south started the fight and took land, the north fought back, took back its land, then beat the enemy down. Had it not done that we'd be flying the Confederate flag right now. But at least no one would get pissed at me decaling my car to look like the General Lee!

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antietam
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/md003....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gettysburg
http://www.history.army.mil/StaffRide/Gettysburg/g...


RE: What?
By Jaybus on 8/18/2010 12:27:19 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, but Lincoln, and many Congressmen, were looking for any excuse to force the seceded states back into the union. South Carolina petitioned the federal government to abandon Ft. Sumter, which clearly belonged to South Carolina, and the federal government repeatedly refused. When they finally bombarded the fort, they allowed the US troops to withdraw. There was not a single casualty in the actual bombardment, as their goal was to destroy the fort, thereby forcing the withdrawal of the troops stationed there. They knew that killing the troops would surely begin a war. Because there were no casualties and because the fort belonged to South Carolina, the South Carolina government probably did not consider the fort's destruction to be an act of war.

Yet Lincoln used the bombardment of Ft. Sumter as propaganda to rally support for a military invasion of the South. So, in as far as the South Carolina government misjudged how far the federal government would go to force the seceded states back into the union, South Carolina had a part in starting the war, even though it was a fairly benign act that resulted in no casualties and was clearly not intended to start a war.


RE: What?
By KnightBreed on 8/18/2010 12:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
Very informative post. Thanks for the research.


RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 8/18/2010 12:33:57 PM , Rating: 4
Adoption of the Constitution by a state meant that it seded the rights granted to the federal government in the constitution to the US government. Adopting it did not sede their sovereignty or mean the federal government then had the power to tell them what to do whenever it wished.

And what you leave out of the Fort Sumter argument is that Anderson was not stationed at Fort Sumter. He was stationed at Fort Moultrie. After South Carolina seceded he decided to move his troops to Fort Sumter. South Carolina demanded he surrender the fort, which was now on their territory, and they would be allowed to return home unharmed. Which they were when the fort was finally taken.

It was not like South Carolina just attacked the troops there because they hated northerners and wanted war. You can make the argument that Fort Sumter was US government property but that applies to everything the South had. So really it is a non-argument. Also its not like the fort was taken the day after Anderson seized it. It wasn't until Lincoln attempted to resupply the fort that the decision to take it back was made. The Confederacy, established by then, probably realized it was a bad idea to let the Union control entrance to such an important trade port. Jefferson did not want to attack Fort Sumter so as not to appear as the aggressor. In the end, Andersons men were allowed to return home. Not exactly the brutal South that schools teach these days.


RE: What?
By clovell on 8/18/2010 1:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yep - Anderson moved his troops in during the night on Christmas. Shots weren't fired for another 4-5 months. No soldiers were killed by enemy fire in the battle. The surrender was dignified, and all union troops were allowed to go home.


RE: What?
By amanojaku on 8/18/2010 2:05:34 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Adoption of the Constitution by a state meant that it seded the rights granted to the federal government in the constitution to the US government. Adopting it did not sede their sovereignty or mean the federal government then had the power to tell them what to do whenever it wished.
Please... Sovereignty means having supreme authority over a geographical area. No state in the US has supreme authority; the federal government of the US is a sovereign state and has supreme authority, and states' rights are limited to what the federal government does not specifically have laws for.
quote:
And what you leave out of the Fort Sumter argument is that Anderson was not stationed at Fort Sumter. He was stationed at Fort Moultrie. After South Carolina seceded he decided to move his troops to Fort Sumter. South Carolina demanded he surrender the fort, which was now on their territory, and they would be allowed to return home unharmed. Which they were when the fort was finally taken.
I didn't leave it out to be sneaky or because I forgot, I left it out because it didn't matter. Anderson was acting on the behalf of the federal government and answered to no one else. South Carolina told him to get out, so he did what any soldier would do: he ignored orders that didn't come from his chain of command. Had he stayed at Ft. Moultrie the result would have been the same: it's in South Carolina and he would have been told to get out.

If Kentucky announced its secession today would the US abandon Fort Knox until the conflict was resolved? Of course not.

As to the casualties, there weren't any on either side because the of luck: the fort wasn't fully stocked with armaments so the Union couldn't dish out any damage, but it was defensible enough to keep out the Confederates. The Union eventually abandoned the fort because it ran out of supplies, and the Confederates were "nice" enough to honor surrender/evacuation. In reality, it was a political move. Neither the Union nor the Confederates wanted to be seen as the aggressor (bad for elections), so both sides attempted restraint.
quote:
It was not like South Carolina just attacked the troops there because they hated northerners and wanted war. You can make the argument that Fort Sumter was US government property but that applies to everything the South had. So really it is a non-argument. Also its not like the fort was taken the day after Anderson seized it. It wasn't until Lincoln attempted to resupply the fort that the decision to take it back was made. The Confederacy, established by then, probably realized it was a bad idea to let the Union control entrance to such an important trade port. Jefferson did not want to attack Fort Sumter so as not to appear as the aggressor. In the end, Andersons men were allowed to return home. Not exactly the brutal South that schools teach these days.
No one ever said the Civil War was about the Southerners hating the Northerners. There were a few Northern states practicing slavery, if you recall. The root issue was that abolishing slavery would have disastrous consequences for states with economies and social structures founded on the practice, and most of those were in the South.

And it was Lincoln's predecessor, President Buchanan, who initiated the supply relief, and the Confederates attacked then. All military bases need to resupply, and that's all that was attempted. Which means the Confederates fired several shots at the Union before the Union finally struck back.

As to the South not being brutal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cicatrices_de_fl...


RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 8/18/2010 4:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sovereignty means having supreme authority over a geographical area. No state in the US has supreme authority; the federal government of the US is a sovereign state and has supreme authority, and states' rights are limited to what the federal government does not specifically have laws for.


Obviously you have never read or don't care about the constitution.

State governments DO have supreme authority over their state. The only things they are not allowed to make laws violating are the rights granted by the constitution as they agreed to when ratifying the constitution. The states GIVE the federal government the right to manage the powers granted to it by the constitution. Not the other way around.

Regardless of whether the federal government passes a law, per the constitution, if that law is not within the powers granted to the federal government then the states do not have to obey it. Finally several states are taking a stand on that matter regarding the new health care bill.


RE: What?
By knutjb on 8/18/2010 4:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
The States do grant their authority to the Feds the way we grant congress the authority to do government business for us. This, as you point out, doesn't mean any of the three, Feds, States, or citizens are always right. The way Andrew Jackson snubbed the Supreme Court is one of many examples.

John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government explains much of what became our Constitution. The founders took much of what he proposed almost verbatim in some phrases.

Many thought Lincoln wasn't against slavery because he said he would take a whole union if it meant that slavery were to continue. Nothing is further from the truth and many of his writings express embarrassment that the US allowed such behavior. Lincoln was a good leader who fixed a bubbling problem that blew up as he entered office. Perfect, no, but there were few others with the capacity to do what he did.


RE: What?
By clovell on 8/19/2010 11:36:41 AM , Rating: 2
So, you apply Texas v. White ex post facto as an arguement that secession was not allowed under the Constitution.
That's a big legal no-no, sir.

The states seceded because abolitionist federal powers were encroaching on right that were historically reserved to them. These encroachments threatened the viability of their entire economy. The face of these encroachments at the time the issue came to a head was Lincoln.

Lincoln refused to negotiate because he knew that other countries would come to the aid of the Confederacy if he legitimized their government. Once he started down the path of war, any turning back would jeopardize the military campaign.

The North took Fort Sumter at night and effictively presented a threat / blockade to a strategic comercial port, as well as the neighboring city of Charleston. Th technicalities are adequately addressed in other posts.


RE: What?
By xthetenth on 8/18/2010 8:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
Then what was the cause of the Civil War? The power in government finally going back to the North instead of staying with the South and its threats of war? The North that'd had its 'right' to nullification trampled by the Fugitive Slave Acts, especially that of 1850? This is the act ramrodded through by the South that forced states to surrender accused fugitives without evidence or a trial no matter what their personal liberty laws said, and forcing their law enforcement personnel to aid in the violation of said laws.

A minor nitpick about Sumter too, that was a Federal fort on Federal land surrendered to the Federal government by statute in 1836. The soldiers there were holding said land, and the South Carolinians attempted to use force of arms to seize said land. This is far more an act of war than Shay's Rebellion (which as I shouldn't need to tell you is the rebellion you're actually looking for to blame for the loss of states' rights).

Finally, remember this is the South which specifically constitutionally forbade the abolition of slavery, and whose only constitutional statement on the right to secede was the preamble's declaration, "We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government " (emphasis mine, a change from the United States' Preamble). Oh, and then there's always the issue of East Tennessee, where the east's attempt to secede back to the Union was met with martial law, and the (notably pre-Lincoln) South Carolinian plans to force the prevention of a candidate for Speaker who had at one point said he supported the views of an abolitionist for economic reasons by sending a regiment up to Washington. No, I am not joking, Governor Gist posted on December 20, 1959 to Senator Miles of South Carolina:

"While I advise against the ejection of Sherman if elected, I do not wish to be understood as not desiring the war to begin at Washington; but as I would prefer it should begin in sudden heat & with good provocation rather than a deliberate determination to perform an act of violence which might prejudice us in the eyes of the world. … If however, you upon consideration decide to make the issue of fire in Washington, write or telegraph me, & I will have a Regiment in or near Washington in the shortest possible time."

The South did not give a damn about states' rights they found inconvenient to slavery, and that's telling about why they went to war. They didn't even have a unified currency but they sure as hell had a prohibition of abolition. The exceptions to their stated (and probably felt) values are quite revealing. Put simply, the war was about slavery because the majority .

Please, show me some cause that you think was major that wasn't an issue because of the South's dependence on slavery. Also, I'm sorry about the wall of text, but trying to cut down the sheer preponderance of evidence that the Civil War was fought because of slavery is hard work. Strangely enough, my teachers didn't really say it. It was all economics (based on slavery) culture (based on slavery) and politics (based on forcing slavery on as much of the country they could force it on) with a poor job of hiding the fact that slavery was the heart of the issue.


RE: What?
By clovell on 8/19/2010 3:39:56 PM , Rating: 2
The southern economy was based on slavery, yes, and a region cannot survive without an economy. The south exercised its rights of secession in order to preserve its economy - not to preserve slavery. It happened that slavery was the only viable economy at the time. So, you can say the war was about slavery, but you'd be missing the point. The war, like the American Revolution, was about the economy (Jimmy Carville rides again).

Your point about Fort Sumter is moot - Only after secession did the federal troops garrison the fort at the mouth of Charleston Harbor, effectively blockading it. In seceding, those waters of Charleston harbor were invaded en route to Fort Sumter and its garrison present a clear and present danger to Charleston. The semantics of the 'first shots' apart from context are the stuff of revisionist history.


RE: What?
By amanojaku on 8/17/2010 6:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Civil War pushed States rights back a hundred years or more. The damn Yankees...
The reduction of states rights at that time enabled the enforcement of the Constitution, namely that slavery is illegal for all people. Left to their own devices there are states that would still have slavery today. You should try another argument.
quote:
Unless the wrong side loses again.
Of course, you already made it clear that slavery wasn't a big deal, so you probably think that argument was valid.


RE: What?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/17/2010 6:16:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Left to their own devices there are states that would still have slavery today. You should try another argument.


So we can't make Amendments to the Constitution without Civil War? Is that what you're saying?

Seriously, if you actually believe this crap that you wrote, please read some history of what was going on at the time. There is NO WAY we would still have slavery today. The Civil War was NOT over slavery. It's well documented that the "North" had slaves as well.

quote:
Of course, you already made it clear that slavery wasn't a big deal


It was a very big deal. But there were also very many other issues coming to a head as well. That's what I'm saying. It wasn't ALL about slaves.

I'm not proud at all of that time in our nations history. But I'm even less proud about how it was handled. Instead of a democratic and Constitutional solution, Lincoln declared war on a democratic and legal succession from the Union.

If you think enforcing the Constitution at gunpoint is, well, Constitutional than I see why we're having this misunderstanding.


RE: What?
By iwanttobehef on 8/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 8/17/2010 7:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
As do I. Even in the states that allowed them the percentage from the south to the north would be over 99%. The amount of slaves in all of north combined was very minuscule. It's the main reason why it took many states forever to actually join the US. Had to have one slave state and 1 non-slave state to balance everything out in the Senate. Although, there were several "slave" states that didn't actually have a lot of slaves.

The war was certainly fought over more than one issue. It's just that slavery was the straw that broke the camels' back.

Reclaimer, you need to realize that if Abe hadn't done what he did then there would not only probably, but most likely be more than 2 separate countries instead of the US we have today. A diplomatic solution can not always be found and it can most certainly never be found that fast. The one decent thing about war is that it can offer sudden and drastic changes. In this case it was a much needed change. You really think slavery wouldn't be around today if it weren't for the civil war? I'd bet that it would be, but even if it wasn't we sure as hell would be at a time before MLK and the Civil Rights movement. Even after a forceful abolishment of slavery it still took about a hundred years for it to truly be over.


RE: What?
By YashBudini on 8/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 8/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 8/17/2010 10:26:44 PM , Rating: 2
As I said in my other post, I doubt a compromise could have been reached, but we'll never know. Even if they had I doubt it would have worked out so well. Pretty much every compromise our government makes turns out like crap. That might just be a more modern thing though.


RE: What?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: What?
By HotFoot on 8/17/2010 11:42:31 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not from the USA, but I go there often. Learning about your civil war was horrific. The savagery, and neighbours and even families turning on each other. It's hard to argue against the idea that almost any alternative to that would have been better. But then, I wasn't there at the time. I don't know what options were exhausted. And frankly, I don't trust any history book to tell the whole story.

Sometimes I think about how polarised US politics is, and how geographically-oriented a lot of that is. It makes me think what the odds are the union will hold, long-term. I also wonder what the downsides or even upsides might be. Maybe people could get on with their lives and not have to force their ideas on people living thousands of miles away. Maybe one set of rules for half an entire continent isn't really appropriate for everyone.

But then, the world order would be very very different. As much as I have some problems with a nation other than my own having such military dominance in the world, at least it is the USA and not, well - pretty much anyone else.


RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 8/18/2010 12:44:27 AM , Rating: 2
No, I'm saying it probably would have come to civil war at one point or another. There is no reason to stall the inevitable. Every nation has undergone internal turmoil since the dawn of man.

And yea, good did come of it. Slavery was gone. Are you suggesting that it's bad that slavery ended? Granted, the war didn't exactly help the South, but they lost. That's kinda what happens when you lose. Our government got the strength it needed to keep us together.

Every government needs a certain level of force/power to be effective. The way our country was originally set up would have nearly ensured our demise. Pretty much no national army and states could do whatever they please. I'm not suggesting we need an all powerful central government; that's too much, but we do need a balance between state rights and the central government. More recently the scales have been tipped towards the central government which isn't good. Back just before the civil war it was the opposite, states had a bit too much power.

IDK why you think that a diplomatic solution would have been best. The way I see it it would really just cause more problems later on. State doesn't like what's going on so it just secedes to get heard and dealt with. That's not helpful for anyone.


RE: What?
By iwanttobehef on 8/17/2010 10:49:12 PM , Rating: 1
Just because the majoity of the country believes differently than you doesn't mean you are not represented. Quite the opposite was true in 1860 the south voted and lost in a popular election. The same is true today.

Are liberals represented in Texas(your example of a conservative state)? Yes they voted and the majority of the population in Texas disagrees with them.

To almost an extreme, conservative states are over represented in the electoral college and the House of Representatives.
btw Obama won the popular vote as well as the EC.

This was not posted in the correct place the first time my apologies


RE: What?
By YashBudini on 8/18/2010 2:21:01 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Democrat presidential candidates focus primarily on Democrat strongholds which have enough votes to win them the presidency entirely on their own.

Oh, so it's not something your group does?

That green Cool-Aid is stronger than I thought.


RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 8/17/2010 7:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
Ohh yea, because you know how easy it is to amend the Constitution. You only need a 66% vote to amend it. I'm sure the South would have willingly given in. Just give it a rest. You have some interesting points about Abe, but thinking that Civil War was not the way to go is being more than a little naive.


RE: What?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/17/2010 9:54:50 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah I get it. The ends justified the means apparently.

I was hoping for a more enlightened discussion, but I see the continued use of the slavery argument by you has dragged this into the typical same old arguments.


RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 8/17/2010 10:05:18 PM , Rating: 3
There's a reason why its so hard to pass an amendment to the Constitution. Because they're important and not to be taken lightly.

If our government actually worked the way its supposed to, we wouldn't have the budget crisis we have today because all the things that are bankrupting the country wouldn't exist without a constitutional amendment which never would have passed.


RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 8/17/2010 10:36:58 PM , Rating: 3
Of course, but that is also my point. There is no way they'd have gotten 66% of the votes to make the amendment. Although, we managed to pass prohibition.... and then subsequently repeal it. Don't know how we managed that in a rather small time period.

Yea, and if communism worked properly then Russia would be the richest of them all. The thing is, people are generally pretty stupid. All governments suck because of that. Back in the day the way we vote might have worked. Less people running, more time to actually be informed on the candidates, less advertising, etc... but the way it is now it's hard to get all the information on everyone who is running for every office. Too many candidates, too much advertising, and actually too much information. The presidential election should be top priority for most, but all you have to do is read the beginning of this paragraph to find the problem with that.


RE: What?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 8/18/2010 12:57:00 AM , Rating: 3
Simple math really. Slave to non-slave states were practically 1:1. Doesn't exactly beat 66% now does it. That does exclude the couple slave states that probably would have voted to abolish slavery, but not enough. I can with some certainty that it wouldn't have passed, but you're right. There is no way to truly know.

Come to think of it though, even if it did pass they would have seceded anyway. What would it really changed?

As there is no true way to know which is the best course of action why are we still discussing this?


RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 8/18/2010 12:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but a) there were more people in the North and b) not everyone in the South agreed with slavery as you imply.

There were places in the South that had already freed their slaves and worked on the principles of share cropping.


RE: What?
By clovell on 8/18/2010 1:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
Slavery was an economic institution in the South. The North had embraced the industrial revolution and had progressed to an economy where slavery wasn't necessary to sustain it. It also decided that gave it the right to impose it's will on a South that could not afford to let it do so.

The result was war.


RE: What?
By rmclean816 on 8/17/2010 11:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
troll


RE: What?
By LoweredExpectations on 8/18/2010 12:46:20 AM , Rating: 2
Some of you guys really crack me up. It must be really depressing living in a world were everything that has ever happened is bad.


RE: What?
By menace on 8/17/2010 6:38:43 PM , Rating: 4
We don't need revolutions or civil wars. We just need informed voters who understand how this republic is supposed to work. Basically we need to 1) vote the bums out and put in people who respect the constitution and tenth amendment etc; 2) make sure you vote in people who pledge for term limits and get a term limit amendment passed. I don't think any congressman should spend more than 12 years in Washington. 3) repeal the amendment that took control of Senate appointments from the states to direct popular elections - this is one of the biggest controls states had over government (the ability to put someone in congress who truly had states interests and not beholden to special interests for getting elected).

Wake up people. We need to save this country. Think. Learn the principles of the republic and understand the checks and balances and how this has been degraded and eroded by the ruling class. We need to push a reset button and get federal government working the way it was intended, as a service for the states and the people and not the other way around.


RE: What?
By Harinezumi on 8/17/2010 7:57:14 PM , Rating: 1
Why not cut out the states altogether and have the national government serve the people directly? Why continue insisting on this extra layer of bureaucracy that divides the nation and its citizens?

It may have been a necessary compromise back in the days of the 13 Colonies, but at this point the concept of the state as a semi-autonomous political entity is a counterproductive anachronism.


RE: What?
By Spivonious on 8/18/2010 8:17:48 AM , Rating: 3
If you don't like it, move. :)

The country was founded on the idea that a large central power is inherently evil and self-serving. The Founders only established a federal government in order to gain a common currency, a common defense force, and a common entity for diplomacy. Similar to the European Union today, where all of the countries use the Euro yet remain their own countries.

What's good for New York is not always good for Montana.


Better Idea
By SSDMaster on 8/17/2010 4:42:24 PM , Rating: 3
Why don't they just make an app that automatically connects to any internet radio station you want. Most (all?) radio stations stream their broadcast live...

Who would use this anyway? Pandora on my Droid has no commercials, and no crappy news... Old people keep pushing their old ways on us, not realizing what the crap they're talking about.




RE: Better Idea
By MaulBall789 on 8/17/2010 4:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
Radio broadcasters (and especially their advertisers) feel they will be left out in the cold, which they will. It's not a good reason, but a reason. There's something to be said for keeping free radio up and running, this just isn't the way to do it.


RE: Better Idea
By Reclaimer77 on 8/17/2010 5:04:03 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry but unless the Government subsidizes terrestrial radio entirely, which I fear they may do, it is going to die as we know it in it's current form.

It can't compete with the Internet and other forms of on-demand content delivery. I mean, hell, they know this. Why do you think they are proposing this?

I only use the radio for traffic updates. Today's music sucks, this vile thing called "Country music" has far too much saturation, and the only talk radio host that's nation wide anymore is Rush. Now that the FCC "saved us" by running Howard Stern off the public airwaves, the morning drivetime options are at an all time LOW. And besides all that, you have to deal with WAY too many too long commercial breaks.

Sorry radio, it aint' the 50's anymore. You had a good run, bye.


RE: Better Idea
By Alexstarfire on 8/17/2010 7:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
We kind of need radio transmissions though. I could care less about music/talk shows/whatever, but broadcasting in case of a national emergency is rather important. What the RIAA is trying to do certainly isn't what needs to be done though. TV transmissions can only do so much if you've lost power. Radio on the other hand can travel long distances and be used on a very wide range of portable electronic devices, like just about every car in the US. Very valuable in times of emergency.


RE: Better Idea
By afkrotch on 8/17/2010 9:06:05 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, cause satellite radio couldn't do the same.


RE: Better Idea
By Alexstarfire on 8/17/2010 10:41:18 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose it could, but then everyone needs a satellite radio. Don't know about you, but I don't know too many people with them. Not only that, but you still need power for the transmission. Yes, you need power for radio broadcasts as well, but not nearly as much.

Why provide OTA transmissions for TV when satellite or cable can do the same? Same logic.


RE: Better Idea
By StevoLincolnite on 8/18/2010 7:54:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, you need power for radio broadcasts as well, but not nearly as much.


Crystal Radio. ;)

quote:
A crystal radio is the simplest kind of radio. Most radios you buy use complicated electronics to make a strong copy of the sound. A crystal radio is a simple kind of radio that just picks up the wave and changes it straight into sound. It does not use separate power or batteries to make a stronger copy of the sound. It gets all of its power only from the radio wave.


I'm actually surprised people listen to the radio, especially in this day and age where most of the devices we carry around can hold a few thousand songs at a time negating such a need for Radio's. (And might I add... NO advertising!)


RE: Better Idea
By delphinus100 on 8/19/2010 6:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
Some people, sometimes, are perfectly content to passively listen to broadcasts, in a format they like, while doing something else (especially driving) and not have to do their own programming.

DVD/VCRs didn't obsolete TVs, neither one obsoleted movies. Records, tapes, CDs didn't destroy radio, and merely because your music is in the form of digitized audio, and there's plenty of storage space, doesn't change the need for you to stop, interact and choose.


RE: Better Idea
By HotFoot on 8/17/2010 11:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
I might just be old-fashioned, but I listen to the radio a lot. Pretty much any time I'm in my car - my own collection of music really only goes so far. Most of the people I've been in the car with do the same, so as far as I can tell, radio is alive and well - just not really for at-home use.

And the point about emergency communications is quite valid. Nothing else is as simple and accessible as radio.


RE: Better Idea
By delphinus100 on 8/19/2010 6:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, but if it were primarily a public safety Emergency Acton Notification matter, one would would also mandate AM reception (your nearest primary EAN station won't always be on FM, and those frequencies propagate further at night) and the ability to automatically activate the receiver audio in the presence of an EAN signal, just like the emergency alert capability in many Weather Service receivers (How about building that functionality in, too? It could be done.).

I would buy an MP3 player (or cellphone, if I had need of and could afford one...not everyone has or can) with the above features (but then, I'm a Ham Radio operator, and a strong believer in emergency communications), but requiring it? We know the RIAA doesn't care a whit about that.

This argument might make more sense if it came from DHS...


RE: Better Idea
By Dr of crap on 8/18/2010 8:47:40 AM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer77 - I read your posts before and most are laughable just like this one.
FM radio is FREE. THAT'S what makes it easy to use and widespread for all.
Yes, comerical free would be good but then it wouldn't be FREE!
Easy as 2=2+4!
As for the music - every heard of an ipod?
Or are you one of those talk radio freaks?


RE: Better Idea
By Quadrillity on 8/18/2010 8:53:38 AM , Rating: 2
listening to talk radio makes you a freak? What's with calling someone a freak lately just because you don't agree with their viewpoint?

I could just as easily call you an iSheep for having an iTool, you iDiot...


RE: Better Idea
By Dr of crap on 8/18/2010 12:31:58 PM , Rating: 1
Only three kinds of talk radio people -
sports - boring, can you only think of sports?

Rush L. and all of his kind - politics - really I've got better things to do

All the other talk radio - again what? boring

As far as the ipod knock - they're all over and work great and what you don't have an MP3 player?
I wouldn't buy a Mac, or iphone, but ipod what you got against ipod?


RE: Better Idea
By Quadrillity on 8/18/2010 2:05:39 PM , Rating: 2
So again; you think something is boring, so that makes people who like it a freak? I don't think so.

I was commenting on the iPod to prove the point that you were being condescending. It would be different if you were doing something like calling pedophiles sick freaks (because it's true). Calling people who enjoy talk radio freaks is very narrow minded and ignorant (childish too).


RE: Better Idea
By Blight AC on 8/17/2010 4:56:48 PM , Rating: 3
That's a great idea, they could call it I Love Radio... or maybe do like the cool kids do and replace love with heart... like... iheartradio, because spaces and grammar are so 90's. Then make it "Available for iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, BlackBerry, Android, Chumby and Sonos" as well as through most browsers.


RE: Better Idea
By edge929 on 8/17/2010 5:10:27 PM , Rating: 3
Seriously. I don't understand all the hoopla about Sirius, XM and iHeartRadio (or whatever they call it). I will not pay to listen to the radio, with or without commercials. I do this crazy thing when commercials come on the free stations, I change the station! I know, I live on the edge (see what I did there?)


RE: Better Idea
By Spuke on 8/17/2010 6:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously. I don't understand all the hoopla about Sirius, XM and iHeartRadio (or whatever they call it).
Iheartradio and Pandora are free. The big deal about XM/Sirius, IMO, is commercial free, CD audio quality (no annoying static), can get music out in the boondocks, and multiple types of music to choose from. I use don't use iheart or Pandora, I use wunder radio. It cost $7 (one time fee) but it's worth it. I get everything including international stations.


RE: Better Idea
By AmbroseAthan on 8/17/2010 10:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
Sirius XM is an amazing service if you use it. We have two cars in the family with it, and whenever I drive the non-XM car I get annoyed by the fact I need to find decent music stations on FM/AM stations.

Even better is when I am traveling a wide area, Sirus XM stations are always the same and I don't need to find new terrestrial stations (due to moving out of signal range). This is especially nice in rural areas with limited numbers of stations.

Sirius XM's music selection and quality (and not to mention things like O&A) is far beyond FM's capabilities (though HD radio is decent quality). And I am saying this in the New York City area, where there is almost a station on every available FM station.


RE: Better Idea
By Reclaimer77 on 8/17/2010 11:20:49 PM , Rating: 2
Quality? Satellite radio sounds like garbage and Sirius sounds even worse than XM because they use an inferior audio codec (PAC instead of HE-AAC), although the bit rates are nearly the same for both services. The bit rates aren't nearly high enough. But CD quality? No, not even close.


RE: Better Idea
By Iaiken on 8/17/2010 5:08:44 PM , Rating: 2
My favorite Jazz station (91.1 FM Toronto) already has an app for that for iTunes and one coming for Android. :D

Interestingly enough, they actually air the live show as well as 3 other web radio streams.

Todays streams are:

High Standards (classic tracks from the greats)
The Grooveyard (Contemporary jazz)
Oscar Peterson (Because he's awesome like that :)

The web streams change from time to time to keep things fresh and the station offers up an incredible show.

This non-profit organization has (amazingly) managed to grow their audience by using the internet and are now starting to receive donations from around the world during their fund raisers. If they can do it, the for-profit radios and their deeper pockets certainly can.


FM?
By Ammohunt on 8/17/2010 4:46:57 PM , Rating: 3
How about AM? seriously in a cell phone? why not all laptops too? These guys are scumbags.




RE: FM?
By Quadrillity on 8/17/2010 4:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about you, but I certainly want a radio receiver in my toilet plunger.


RE: FM?
By borismkv on 8/17/2010 5:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing but crap on the radio these days anyway. Might as well make that literal.


RE: FM?
By MonkeyPaw on 8/17/2010 6:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's just the same 10 songs you hear every hour--you can do that with $10 and an iPod!


RE: FM?
By HotFoot on 8/17/2010 11:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
Get off Clear Channel and branch out a bit. Sad part is one company with such a large amount of control has lead to such a lack of diversity.


RE: FM?
By YashBudini on 8/18/2010 9:39:42 AM , Rating: 1
Clearchannel destroyed all the independents.


RE: FM?
By knutjb on 8/17/2010 6:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously do you think that bastion of free speech, the Left, would add AM to that even though they do play music? The thought of Rush Limbaugh available to all those cell phones...


RE: FM?
By HotFoot on 8/17/2010 11:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
It probably has more to do with the practicality of putting an antenna large enough to be effective at tuning into AM signals.


RE: FM?
By knutjb on 8/18/2010 4:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
Just being facetious to the politics.


RE: FM?
By FITCamaro on 8/18/2010 12:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yes people being allowed to listen to what they want is a terrible thing....

Not that I'm for this mandate. Would be just another example of the federal government overstepping its power.


RE: FM?
By BZDTemp on 8/17/2010 7:57:58 PM , Rating: 2
If the line reported that says "...have Congress mandate broadcast radios in portable devices, including mobile phones" you could see FM receivers in anything from the next Nintendo DS to a Segway!

Stupid is the best to cover it I think.


And people wonder
By Reclaimer77 on 8/17/2010 4:54:27 PM , Rating: 1
People wonder why all our manufacturing and other industries packed up and moved to China and other countries. It's because our government has been making the cost of doing business here too high with crap like this!

When will it end! Hey radio is "too essential" to not have a tuner built into my toaster!




RE: And people wonder
By Ammohunt on 8/17/2010 5:01:08 PM , Rating: 1
But think of all the new taxes they can make up on FM equipped cell phone! but only for the rich ;-)


RE: And people wonder
By YashBudini on 8/17/2010 9:18:06 PM , Rating: 2
Let's look at this from Retread's usual stance:

1. They are just a company trying to make money in any way they can. That's capitalism. What's wrong with that? You liberal swine.

2. They haven't broken any laws, so what's the problem? You liberal swine.

3. They have lobbyists. So what? You liberal swine.


RE: And people wonder
By rdawise on 8/18/2010 12:03:03 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
People wonder why all our manufacturing and other industries packed up and moved to China and other countries.


Packed up and moved you say? More like they "outsourced" to cheaper labor. You do realize that the taxes we place on business is about on average for any other industrialized country. Emphasis on industrialized.

What's funny here is that your anger is placed on the Government and not the RIAA (in other words the people who are proposing this). DO you really think before you speak or are you always in Anti-Government troll mode? But at least you can say you actually speak about more tech news that Fit however...


RE: And people wonder
By Solandri on 8/18/2010 6:07:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You do realize that the taxes we place on business is about on average for any other industrialized country. Emphasis on industrialized.

Actually, the US has among the highest corporate tax rates of any industrialized country. Here's the 2001 and 2008 OECD figures in a nifty graph:
http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/Paper.asp...

The U.S. had a corporate tax rate of nearly 40%, vs. and OECD average of 26.6% in 2008. Second only to Japan (and just barely).

Also note the third graph, which shows each country's corporate tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. The U.S. is below average despite having a higher tax rate. That's because as OP said, the high taxes have driven many companies to move their operations out of the U.S. and made them seek overseas tax shelters to avoid paying U.S. corporate taxes.

Here's a description of the OECD. I think you'll agree they're the cream of the crop of industrialized countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_for_Econ...


RE: And people wonder
By YashBudini on 8/18/2010 1:46:27 AM , Rating: 1
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.h...

Check out SC, a state that sucks up more money from DC than it ever pays in, and oh so typical of red states. But piss and moan is all you get around here.

Let them all fend for themselves, then watch what happens. Oh, and don't pass up California footing the bill.


RE: And people wonder
By ccmfreak2 on 8/18/2010 1:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
If radio was really so "essential" to people that they needed it on their cell phones, then people would demand it.

"Hmm, I could choose this phone with full browser and plenty of space for mp3's, or I can choose THIS phone over here with a RADIO! Wow!"

This comparison just doesn't happen. I've had cell phones with radios built into them. I never used it. If I need a radio, I'll turn on my... well... my radio. If I'm out of the house, then that means I'm in my car - which has a radio.

If consumers really NEEDED (or even wanted) radios in their cellphones, marketing research would reflect this. But consumers don't need it, because consumers have radios elsewhere. It's not a matter of manufacturing. Please. Radio chips are dirt cheap. It's a matter of adding in worthless crap that consumers don't want or need.

Is the radio dead? No. But it's not needed in every device we own. Most mp3 players have radios in them. Most people never even access this feature. It's not even a feature that holds weight. Why even waste our time with this feature?


RE: And people wonder
By delphinus100 on 8/19/2010 6:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, it could still be mandated that any relevant devices sold in the US have this capability. Manufactured offshore doesn't matter.

Just try to buy a scanner radio in the US that receives (not decodes the audio from the bit stream now mind you, just receives ) any of the cellphone frequencies, and see what I mean...


RE: And people wonder
By LoweredExpectations on 8/22/2010 5:05:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People wonder why all our manufacturing and other industries packed up and moved to China and other countries.

More corporate fanboy propaganda!

The only reason they moved their factories to China is because minimum wage over there is about US $140/mth - when you throw in unpaid overtime, that works out to far less than a buck an hour. The bottom-line guys care only about stock price and their own paychecks, everybody else is just fodder for the machine.

You parrot the Republican more-money-for-the-rich party line, but, in fact, two-thirds of American corporations pay NO federal taxes whatsoever.


HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
By amanojaku on 8/17/2010 4:45:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So is mandating radio tuners in cell phones the same thing as mandating DTV tuners in TV sets? The RIAA and NAB seem convinced it is.
No, they want US to think it is, which allows them to do what they want. When you buy a TV you expect OTA broadcast support, even if you don't plan on using it because of cable, Blu-Ray and web streaming. When you buy a radio or receiver you expect OTA broadcast support, even if you don't plan on using it because of CDs, MP3s and web streaming.

But you buy a phone to make phone calls. Legally, the only expectation is that you get a phone/data signal in your plan area. You might be interested in a smart phone to do other things than make phone calls, but no one expects a radio in a phone. Few people even want one, because radio is dying and in need of a few bullets to the Clear Channel-skull.




RE: HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
By Jaybus on 8/17/2010 5:32:27 PM , Rating: 3
Radio is dying because of the content, not because of the Internet or mp3 playing capability of phones. As bandwidth increases, I fully expect the same will happen to OTA TV, and for that matter network (as in NBC, ABC, etc) TV in general. Folks, the reason nobody listens to radio is that radio content sucks.

When I was young, and there was no Internet and cable TV was in its infancy, I listened to radio. There were stations that played various genres. There would be many songs in a row with short commercial breaks perhaps every half hour. Even the DJs would not be heard from for several songs in a row. Fast forward 30 years and I'm damned if I can listen to even a single song during my 20 minute commutes. Naturally, like everyone else, I bought an iPod and receiver and stopped bothering with radio at all.

For the same reason, 30 minute shows in 60 minute time slots with 50% advertising, I didn't watch TV for several years before I got a wonderful DVR that once again allowed viewing TV shows with the use of the 30-second-skip button. If not for the DVR, TV would be in the same boat as radio.

Bottom line: back when there were FAR fewer commercial breaks, radio was enjoyable. Now it is far to annoying to bother with, and nobody will ever make use of a FM chip in a cell phone. What a waste of resources and battery charge an FM chip on a cell phone would be. Absolutely absurd.


RE: HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
By Spuke on 8/17/2010 6:54:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What a waste of resources and battery charge an FM chip on a cell phone would be. Absolutely absurd.
And you can bet it will be always on by default. Hopefully, there will be apps that turn that crap off.


RE: HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
By Dr of crap on 8/18/2010 12:46:06 PM , Rating: 2
Bravo, thank you.
That is hitting the nail on the head.
If they wouldn't have allowed Clear Channel to buy up all the radio stations, we wouldn't have such crap radio!

What I don't understand is Clear channel must have heard these complaints by now, and yet is still won't change!

When / Where I grew up we had one FM station and it played GREAT veriety, TRUE veriety of songs.
(OK, let the comments begin about what a hick town that was - Late 1970's and it wasn't that small of a town.)


RE: HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
By darckhart on 8/17/2010 6:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
im not sure how to rate you up to 10, but yes. completely agree. it appears the key to success is to be as stupid as possible.


RE: HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
By delphinus100 on 8/19/2010 6:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
Amen.


Most phones already have the chip
By joey2264 on 8/17/2010 5:38:53 PM , Rating: 3
You guys know that the vast majority of smartphones already have a chip capable of fm radio reception, right? The iPhone certainly does. So the practical effect for smartphone manufacturers will be mandating that they have an fm radio app in their os capable of accessing the hardware that is already there. As far as dumbphones, I'm sure it would cost less than a dollar put an fm radio chip in such phones, assuming the chips are purchased in mass volumes.

I'm not one to agree with the RIAA on almost anything, but I think this would be a pretty good idea. It certainly makes a lot more sense than mandating DTV tuners did way back when, and it is certainly far cheaper.




RE: Most phones already have the chip
By Spuke on 8/17/2010 7:02:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm not one to agree with the RIAA on almost anything, but I think this would be a pretty good idea.
I don't care if there's a potato chip in every phone, the RIAA sets us all back 100 friggin IQ points each time they come up with some new BS scheme. And I'm tired of slobbering! Get thee behind me Satan! FUCK OFF ALREADY!!


RE: Most phones already have the chip
By TSS on 8/18/2010 4:59:07 AM , Rating: 2
The point you bring up actually makes the problem worse. At this very moment i can acces 4 devices, including my dumbphone, all already having a radio tuner, and i still don't listen to it. Now one of them suddenly has to be congressionally mandated to be there? What's next, a mandate to force citizens to actually listen to the radio?

Currently, the RIAA is worse then the mob. You'll get better protection for your protection money then you'll get good music for the money you pay to be allowed to listen to it, and even the muscle men of the mob are getting a larger share of that money then artists see of the money going to the RIAA.

But that all isn't the problem. In the end, i can't fault the RIAA for doing what they do because, as wikipedia lists it, their there to protect Intellectual Copy Rights. How can the protector of something so corrupted not be corrupt?


I'd laugh my ass off if...
By afkrotch on 8/17/2010 9:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
The US government does mandate radio tuners in cellphones, but only AM and only 1 station for possible local/national emergencies.




RE: I'd laugh my ass off if...
By gibb3h on 8/18/2010 3:32:29 AM , Rating: 2
we need some mobile HAM radio going on!


RE: I'd laugh my ass off if...
By ccmfreak2 on 8/18/2010 1:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yes! Then I can listen to the Onion Network News anywhere I go!

Oh... wait... you meant the OTHER station that would be chosen for this. The one that no one listens to.


Simple things
By aston12 on 8/17/2010 11:11:15 PM , Rating: 1
I wanted to buy a cheap, simple new cellphone last week. So i could call people and receive/send an sms. Nothing else. As i do NOT need, not use, nor do i want other functions.

So a cellphone without all bullshit like radio, internet, mobile tv, gps, silly promo games, jukebox, camera... and weird apps i even never heard off.
Guess what. I did not find any and the cheapest i could find was still around 50 euro.

What i am trying to say is: it is wrong that companies do not give you any choice, but it is even more wrong if the government does the same.

And ofcourse we have to pay for all the things we do not need.... Only choice i had was to NOT BUY a cellphone , or a TV (could not find a single channel without commercials) or a radio (could not find a station without commercials, same songs over and over again and a dj that did not want to shut up), . If it wasn't for work i would have skipped all 3 products. Now i still have to buy the cellphone.

So now i have no TV, no radio, no political correct state controlled newspapers and i am starting to dislike the internet advertisement too.

Welcome to the modern ages.




RE: Simple things
By HotFoot on 8/17/2010 11:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
50 Euro isn't bad for a basic phone, if that's an outright-buy price. I can sympathise with wanting to be able to buy something that fits the function you're looking for, and nothing else. I had a bit of trouble a few years ago finding a laptop with no built-in camera. I needed one with no camera so I could bring it into buildings with special security restrictions. Sometimes less is more. Other times, it's just nice to have something very minimalist with no bells and whistles.

As for TV - well I also hate advertising. I don't have cable/satellite and I don't even do over-the-air. I buy what I want to watch on DVD. There are some downsides to that, if you want to be able to talk with your friends about the latest thing you saw in this show everyone's watching, but... meh. Video streaming is quickly becoming just fine for sports.

Seems to me you're in a back-to-basics kind of way. Nothing says you have to be tuned-in 24/7 - lots of people just choose to. You can equally choose to turn all that crap off. I wouldn't doubt you'll be very happy without it.


RE: Simple things
By Dr of crap on 8/18/2010 12:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that is what I've been saying for a long time. Yet if I post that some phone is over kill and is over priced, I get yelled at as being a hick.
There are some of us that don't need to have email in our face 24/7.
And just need a cell phone to be a phone!
But a build simple phone - it wouldn't sell. Can't market that to teens!


Poor reception
By Devo2007 on 8/17/2010 6:00:01 PM , Rating: 2
If there's one thing I've noticed about radios in cell phones, it's that they generally have poor reception. Stay in one place and it's fine - but walk or take public transit somewhere and good luck maintaining a clear signal.

I kept saying I wanted a phone with FM radio - only to find that I seldom use it because of reception issues.




RE: Poor reception
By delphinus100 on 8/21/2010 9:52:35 AM , Rating: 2
Part of that, is because manufacturers are afraid to put halfway decent antennas (which means they'll look something like a real antenna that actually extends outside its case, and no, you shouldn't touch it while trying to transmit or receive RF) on any kind of 'wireless' device anymore, even some WiFi routers.

God forbid that a radio (and that includes something that's only a cellphone) might actually look like some kind of radio...


We the people
By xxsk8er101xx on 8/17/2010 6:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
Strange; I thought it was we the people that told the government what to do. Not Corporate Giants like the RIAA?

Peace Sells but whos buying!




RE: We the people
By YashBudini on 8/18/2010 11:21:28 AM , Rating: 1
You haven't been watching banks and Wall St., have you?


....
By Myg on 8/18/2010 12:13:21 AM , Rating: 3
You yanks are insane, arguing over the past like that; geez.

But on a side note, as I foreigner to your issues; I must say that without slavery the United states would of been 100 years behind. Your nation is built upon the backs of those you subjugated, just like the Romans and any other large and "successful" empire before and after.

Lets be real about this, you are no better or worse really; your just repeating history thats all.




FM?
By igedit on 8/17/2010 5:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
People still listen to FM radio?




Only if....
By Nutzo on 8/17/2010 5:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'd go along with this, as long as I can sue the RIAA everytime they release a another piece of carp they music.




Old new...
By daniyarm on 8/17/2010 5:11:42 PM , Rating: 1
So why is this being reported almost 2 days late? This is old news. If your job is to bring us tech news, you should know that 90% of the people that visit this site have read this on Monday morning on 10 other tech news sites.




RE: Old new...
By adiposity on 8/17/2010 5:28:30 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, I laughed when I saw the "NEW!" tag next to this article.


Ruling class vs. country class
By JDub02 on 8/17/2010 5:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yet another example of the "ruling class" trying to force their will on and take money from the rest of us who still actually work for a living.

I'm really sick of people who sue and legislate themselves other people's money and don't bother to do anything to earn it.




Here's the best idea yet
By Old Man Dotes on 8/17/2010 5:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
Both the RIAA and the broadcasters can eat my shorts . I don't listen to radio now, and I am damn sure not going to listen even if they manage to get their whores in Congress to tell me I have to have an FM broadcast radio in my phone.

I will go so far as to shop for my cell phone in overseas markets, to try to find one without a radio. Once I find one, I'll let everyone who reads my blogs know where they can get one. I bet it will be cheaper than anything ATT, Sprint, Verizon, or any of the other US monopoly carriers offers, too.




Radiotime
By droplets on 8/17/2010 7:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
If you have a Palm Pre, just get the Radiotime app. You can find a lot of FM stations from the US and world rebroadcast on there.

A good example of a benefit of separation of phone manufacturers and software market.

Wish I got here sooner...so many irrelevant comments (the extensive secession thread) to bury the good ones.




By gcor on 8/17/2010 8:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
I've had a radio in my phone for the past 4 years. I've only used it a hand full of times, tops. Instead, I play my 4Gb worth of mp3's.

RIAA seems not to understand that the world is moving toward on demand entertainment, not away from it.




By rika13 on 8/18/2010 7:08:49 AM , Rating: 2
The reason the South was unhappy was the slaves were counted for 3/5 of a person for representation, whist North immigrants were counted in full, therefore, the South was losing representation. Evidence of this is the fact that Southern state had 10 or fewer electoral votes except Tennessee and Kentucky which had 12 and Virginia (which included W. Virginia) had 15, whist Ohio had 23, Pennsylvania had 27, and New York had 35, those three states alone would be enough to browbeat that election.

This is the reason why many non-border states are so happy to have illegals, it boosts their populations so they get more seats in the House and more electoral votes.




What about George?
By Da W on 8/18/2010 8:40:26 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know how this article about FM tuners turned into a debate about civil war and Abe Lincon being a tyrant, but you americans, divided as you are, need to aknowledge that George Washington fired the first shot against the french and started what Churchill called "the real first world war".

By the way, if the confederates had won, there would be no USA, just a bunch of independant states, and Canada would rule north america!




By seraphim1982 on 8/18/2010 9:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
First comes the money.....
Then comes the power.....

THEN COME THE WOMEN........




By GeekWithFire on 8/18/2010 9:58:54 AM , Rating: 2
When people tell me capitalism doesn’t work any more, this is the kind of stuff I point them to. Forcing a manufacturer to support a media that may or may not be able to make it on its own is counter productive to the process. In this example, there are already products out there that have made the gamble on FM. Why not let them prove out the media. For example, Zunes for years have had FM. Windows Phone 7 will as well. If it’s an important feature, their product will be successful, in part, because of it. It helps Microsoft and it helps FM. If it isn’t popular, it will fade away. Let the system work and stop forcing socialism so that you can say capitalism failed.




Cell Phone receivers
By wallijonn on 8/18/2010 11:40:24 AM , Rating: 2
The RIAA will probably then seek a set fee, a licensing fee, say of $1 per cell phone per contract renewal, sometime in the future, as a means to guarantee income. At the very least they will charge a $1 per phone fee for the ability to receive "free" music. This charge, of course, will be hidden in the cost of the phone, merely added to the price of the phone, much as is done for Digital Cameras using flash mem sticks and computers using processor chips.

If the broadcasters balk at paying the RIAA duty the RIAA will get their pound of flesh from the users by instituting a back end license fee.




In other news...
By bupkus on 8/18/2010 12:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
In other news, the Adult Film Industry is negotiating a deal with the RIAA that would press Congress to mandate all cell phones come equipped with butt plugs.




Why FM? Why not DAB?
By PrinceGaz on 8/18/2010 2:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
Surely if they're going to mandate some sort of broadcast radio reception capability, they should go with the more future-proof DAB+ (which is backward compatible with the existing DAB), rather than FM which will be phased out in some countries in coming years.




How about AM radio?
By kawatwo on 8/18/2010 11:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
Why do we always get FM but no AM? Some of us need our Coast to Coast AM darn it! And AM would be the one for public safety with news and weather when you need it. I don't think radio should be mandated but if manufacturers want to give us more features I am not complaining.




By jconan on 8/21/2010 3:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
Adding unneeded radios will only jack up the price of build of materials and will decrease the battery life for unnecessary or unneeded silicon. FM radios should be dictated by free market not by corrupt media companies whose only objective is steal money from consumers.




"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki