About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Beck still doesn't understand net neutrality

November 22, 2010 11:46 pm ET — 32 Comments

Glenn Beck again claimed that proposed net neutrality rules are "basically a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet" and would allow the government to "control what you see on the Internet." In fact, net neutrality prohibits Internet service providers from controlling access to Internet content, and -- contrary to Beck's suggestion -- would not require Fox to change its content.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Beck falsely claims net neutrality is "basically a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet"

Beck: "They want to make sure that you can get the Huffington Post on Fox News." On the November 22 edition of his Fox News program, Beck claimed that net neutrality rules would require conservative news outlets to provide progressive content, falsely comparing net neutrality to the Fairness Doctrine. He added: "They want to make sure that you can get the Huffington Post on Fox News. No, thank you. They're about to control what you see on the Internet."

From the November 22 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: The next thing I want you to consider is net neutrality -- the FCC over Congress. We told you that Congress was making itself irrelevant. They couldn't get net neutrality through Congress. Well, the FCC is announcing plans next week for regulations that would ban ISPs like Comcast from blocking or favoring content online. This is basically a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.

America, you lose the Internet, you lose the war, I think. Cass Sunstein said it was bad for people that they could seek out information that only fits their point of view. They want to make sure that you can get the Huffington Post on Fox News. No, thank you. They're about to control what you see on the Internet. And Congress doesn't even have a say anymore. They're being completely circumvented. Comcast, I believe, will most likely go for it, because they're takeover of NBC? I'll bet you that's being held hostage.

On The O'Reilly Factor, Beck repeated falsehood that net neutrality is "the Fairness Doctrine on the Internet." Beck repeated his claim that net neutrality is "basically the Fairness Doctrine on the Internet" during his appearance on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show on November 22. Beck also asserted that it is "correct" that "[t]hose on the left" "want to regulate Internet content." From the November 22 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

BECK: They're going for -- on the Internet, they're going for net neutrality through the FCC. They're bypassing Congress and going to try to regulate the Internet. What was it? Next week, I think they're trying to do that.

O'REILLY: Who's -- wait, wait. I don't understand. Who's they?

BECK: The left.

O'REILLY: OK. They want to -- net neutrality, what does that mean?

BECK: Net neutrality -- what it is, is they say you can't -- it's basically the Fairness Doctrine on the Internet.

O'REILLY: So they want to regulate Internet content?

BECK: Correct.

O'REILLY: Those on the left.

BECK: Right.

O'REILLY: Why would they want to do that? It's a leftwing cesspool.

BECK: How did it -- how great was it for the left when you shut down opposing voices on talk radio?

Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to present opposing views on controversial issues. As noted by FoxNews.com in February 2009, "The Fairness Doctrine was adopted in 1949 and held that broadcasters were obligated to provide opposing points of views on controversial issues of national importance. It was halted under the Reagan administration." Net neutrality would in no way dictate how media outlets report or comment on the news.

Net neutrality would not allow government to dictate content on the Internet

In fact, net neutrality prohibits Internet Service Providers from controlling access to Internet content. Contrary to claims that net neutrality allows the government to control content on the Internet, the Congressional Research Service states that net neutrality is the principle that "owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network; and should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network."

Wash. Post: Net neutrality is "idea that all traffic on the Internet should travel at the same speed." The Washington Post reported on October 28:

Net neutrality -- the idea that all traffic on the Internet should travel at the same speed -- has been a point of contention for the Federal Communications Commission, which is proposing regulations that would ensure that broadband service providers treat all Web traffic equally.

[...]

The FCC wants to prevent Internet service providers from blocking Web applications or slowing the transmission of Web sites. It is unclear if those rules would apply to wireless networks and companies such as Verizon and Google, which want network carriers to be able to charge companies willing to pay for faster channels on their networks.

Christian Coalition, Parents Television Council support net neutrality. In its support for net neutrality, the Christian Coalition stated that this "is an issue extremely important to America's grassroots organizations and to those Americans who want to ensure the cable and phone companies controlling access to the Internet will not discriminate. ... Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has grown the way it has and become such an indispensible tool in our lives and our civic discourse." The Christian Coalition and the Parents Television Council are charter members of a group of people and organizations that "are working together to urge Congress to preserve Net Neutrality." The founder of the Parents Television Council is Brent Bozell, who frequently appears on Fox News.

Internet pioneers and leaders credit net neutrality as guiding principle in growth and competition

"Father of the internet" and pioneering scientists support net neutrality rules. In an October 15, 2009, letter to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, Internet pioneers Vinton G. Cerf, Stephen D. Crocker, David P. Reed, Lauren Weinstein, and Daniel Lynch wrote, "We believe that the vast numbers of innovative Internet applications over the last decade are a direct consequence of an open and freely accessible Internet." The scientists also stated that the "network neutrality proposal's key principles of 'nondiscrimination' and 'transparency' are necessary components of a pro-innovation public policy agenda for this nation. ... [N]etwork neutrality proposals will help protect U.S. Internet users' choices for and freedom to access all available Internet services, worldwide." As FoxNews.com itself notes, Cerf is "often called 'the father of the Internet.' "

Internet pioneering companies support net neutrality for growth and creativity. In an October 19, 2009, letter to Genachowski, the CEOs of Amazon.com, Craigslist, Digg, eBay, Facebook, Linkedin, and Twitter, among numerous others, wrote in support of net neutrality, stating that "America's leadership in the technology space has been due, in large part, to the open Internet." From the letter:

For most of the Internet's history, FCC rules have ensured that consumers have been able to choose the content and services they want over their Internet connections. Entrepreneurs, technologists, and venture capitalists have previously been able to develop new online products and services with the guarantee of neutral, nondiscriminatory access by users, which has fueled an unprecedented era of economic growth and creativity. Existing businesses have been able to leverage the power of the Internet to develop innovative product lines, reach new consumers, and create new ways of doing business.

[...]

America's leadership in the technology space has been due, in large part, to the open Internet. We applaud your leadership in initiating a process to develop rules to ensure that the qualities that have made the Internet so successful are protected.

Berners-Lee, described by Fox News as the World Wide Web's creator, calls net neutrality vital for innovation, diversity. In a June 2006 post on his blog, Tim Berners-Lee -- who FoxNews.com noted "created a computer-based system for sharing information with colleagues around the world [World Wide Web]" -- wrote: "When I invented the Web, I didn't have to ask anyone's permission. Now, hundreds of millions of people are using it freely. I am worried that that is going end in the USA. ... I hope that Congress can protect net neutrality, so I can continue to innovate in the internet space. I want to see the explosion of innovations happening out there on the Web, so diverse and so exciting, continue unabated."

Investors who "brought us the Mac, Tweets and Internet search" support net neutrality. WashingtonPost.com telecommunications reporter Cecilia Kang noted on October 20, 2009, that the "people who invested the money that eventually brought us the Mac, Tweets and Internet search ... threw their support behind a push for proposed net neutrality rules, saying clear regulations that prevent Internet services providers from blocking the applications they help fund would spur growth in one of the brightest sectors of the economy." The investors stated in a letter that the "promise of permanently securing an open Internet will deliver consumers and innovators a perfect free market that drives investment, job creation, and consumer welfare." Kang reported that the letter's signers included investors who helped start Amazon, Sun Microsystems, Google, Skype, Hotmail, Twitter, and Yelp.

Google: "Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days," allowing innovation. In its explanation of net neutrality, Google wrote that the "Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that has allowed many companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and innovate. Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online."

Beck wrongly suggests Sunstein wants to require websites to present opposing views

Beck: "Cass Sunstein said it was bad for people that they could seek out information that only fits their point of view." During the segment, Beck said: "Cass Sunstein said it was bad for people that they could seek out information that only fits their point of view. They want to make sure that you can get the Huffington Post on Fox News. No, thank you. They're about to control what you see on the Internet."

Sunstein said it was a "bad idea" for government to require websites to provide opposing viewpoints. PolitiFact.com reported that in his 2002 book, Republic.com, "Sunstein talks about the idea of the government requiring sites to link to opposing views." However, PolitiFact further reported:

In a later edition of the book released in 2007, Republic.com 2.0 , Sunstein tempers that position, advocating instead for the creation of public spaces on the Internet where people with differing viewpoints could share their ideas with one another.

But in a video interview on the Web site Bloggerheads.tv on Feb. 29, 2008, Sunstein actually goes a little bit farther than that, calling it a "bad idea" he should never have ventured.

Asked to explain some of the differences between the first book, what Sunstein called "the initial inadequate edition," and its successor, Sunstein said, "To me, the most important (difference) is that the first Republic.com was full of some bad policy recommendations and I was able to get rid of those. So I feel the book has been corrected."

"The initial book was interested in at least considering some government mandates that would require people to link to opposing views, that would require some attention to arguments that maybe had been neglected," Sunstein said. "And while the book Republic.com was pretty tentative about that, to be tentative about a bad idea, it's probably better not to even venture a bad idea. Some of the bad ideas I ventured tentatively as worth considering in Republic.com , in 2.0 I say they'd be bad ideas and they'd be unconstitutional."

Contrary to Beck's suggestion, Sunstein's discussion of this topic is entirely unrelated to net neutrality.

Beck has a history of misinforming about net neutrality

Beck claimed net neutrality is "a way to control voices." On the January 19 edition of his Fox News show [accessed via Nexis], Beck claimed, "FCC, they want net neutrality with Obama. That's the big push. Net neutrality, it's a way to control voices."

Beck: "So we have Marxists that are designing and working on net neutrality -- are believers in net neutrality" to "control content." During the October 20, 2009, edition of his Fox News program, Beck claimed that "we have Marxists that are designing and working on net neutrality -- are big believers in net neutrality, right? Gosh, it does seem that these would be the wrong people to help, you know, innovate business for it. And so what they want to do is, if I can do the third one, control content."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by ThomasJH268 (November 23, 2010 12:01 am ET)
      9  
      I would ask id someone would explain to Beck what net-neutrality really is. But that would be trying to explain to him why the alphabet is in the order it is. He'll just call you a liar, go with his own theory and blame Woodrow Wilson for the sinking of the Titanic or something.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ThomasJH268 (November 23, 2010 12:04 am ET)
      14  
      For those of you who think Beck knows what he's talking about:

      What's wrong with you?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mayhem62930 (November 23, 2010 12:30 am ET)
      2  
      I think if Beck didn't get things wrong all the time, and make something out of nothing, he wouldn't have a job anymore, since he wouldn't have anything to talk about.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (November 23, 2010 2:15 am ET)
      5  
      This guy's stupidity is simply an act that preys and cashes in on the stupidity of those who believe him.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NoTrueScotsman (November 23, 2010 9:15 am ET)
        2  
        Watch the clip again. Did...did O'Reilly just try and catch him in that? Listen specifically to his tone when he asks, "Who is 'they'?" It through Beck off. He stumbled with the answer, "Ummm...the left?"

        Maybe this will spawn the implosion of Fox, which would hopefully take out Fox and MSNBC in some sort of industrial accident, and we could just have...dare we dream?...news?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jacobktm (November 25, 2010 9:56 pm ET)
          1  
          The thing is, though, O'Reilly is really just jealous of Beck, this is the real source of that antagonism. O' Reilly didn't go nearly far enough to actually show Beck's error and that's either because he agrees or he's not allowed to prove Beck wrong on national television.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by David2012 (November 23, 2010 5:44 am ET)
      5  
      I agree that Glenn doesn't quite understand net neutrality. But at some gut level, he does understand that it means that the rich and powerful can't have the loudest megaphones, and that is his real constituency.

      I do think he understands, or has been told, that much.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (November 23, 2010 8:03 am ET)
        3  
        Yep, people never understand things when misunderstanding makes them more money.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wmjodea3 (November 23, 2010 11:43 am ET)
          1  
          I agree. Mr Beck might not fully understand "net neutrality"; but I believe he thinks most Fox News listeners do not understand "net neutrality" and since explaining "net neutrality" correctly does not fit well into Mr Beck's fearmongering, he needs to misrepresent what "net neutrality" is in order to frighten Fox News listeners; so they will keep supporting him.

          It is all about the money and those at Fox News have learned telling the listeners what they want to hear is more profitable than reporting the truth.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by nativeofsf (November 23, 2010 7:09 am ET)
      3  
      And just what-the-Hell does Becky really understand?

      Any takers...?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mcgloinm (November 23, 2010 7:50 am ET)
         
      I could understand watching/listening to beck for entertainment value (bad choice of word), but to believe this con man....
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (November 23, 2010 8:09 am ET)
      7  
      This is another attempt by righties to create monopolies through privatization. The same way that the public airwaves went from a public service to the Sarah 2012 hypnotism show the net is being turned into a mouthpiece of big business and right wing politics. They didn't develop it and shouldn't have control.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by overmars jr. (November 23, 2010 9:47 am ET)
         
      Are we supposed to be surprised?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by papajohn (November 23, 2010 10:01 am ET)
        1  
        MMFA's assessment that Beck still doesn't understand net neutrality implies that Beck is either stupid or mostly misinformed. Of course we all know that Beck never lies, so that explanation cannot be considered.

        John
        Report Abuse
        • Author by overmars jr. (November 23, 2010 1:36 pm ET)
             
          Heh. And yet, it's also true that the "man" is a walking, breathing lie for cash. I generally assume he knows quite a bit more than most assume. He's not crazy... he's just an unrepentant user scumbag.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Macaframa3 (November 23, 2010 10:18 am ET)
      2  
      I am a Network Security Specialist, and I have followed Net Neutrality for years. Net Neutrality is an extremely important issue. ISP's basically want the liberty to block content if they so choose. For example, Verizon may decide to block a video content site such as Hulu, if it is a competitor to their "Verizon Video" service.


      Proponents of Net Neut. want the ISP to simply be able to offer you access to the internet at a price/speed without the ability to filter ANY of your traffic. Consider if Time Warner wanted to allow FAST access to all it's affiliates sites but cause other sites to run really SLOW. Therby causing an incentive to get news, sports, etc from "their" sources. This would be like TV is now. to get NFL network you must have Dish, without net neut. to get NFL.com you may be forced to have a certain ISP. Everyone should be opposed to it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Macaframa3 (November 23, 2010 10:26 am ET)
        1  
        This would be like Google, filtering your search results to only show their sponsors. Sure, they do have ads but other than that, their results are based on a well know metric. Plus, If google got out of hand, you could easily switch to Bing or Yahoo. With Net Neutrality if an ISP gets "out of hand" what can you do? If their is no other ISP close, your S.O.L.


        Alot of places in this country only have one provider (if that). Imagine someone like Rupert Murdoch signing a deal with a small ISP in a state. Without Net Neutrality, that ISP may ONLY show Fox News and block MSNBC, CNN, and Media Matters. They would then be free to report news however they want in order to persuade voters or anyone. If you're for the first amendment and believe in sites like MMFA, you should be for Net Neutrality.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by alienofwar (November 23, 2010 11:48 am ET)
          1 1
          Great posts. New Neutrality basically keeps the internet as it is right now. Because the Left has a strong presence on the internet, I can see why the Right is against it, they want to make sure their viewers continue to live in a right-wing bubble, including on the internet.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by wizbor4654 (November 23, 2010 11:14 am ET)
      1 6
      Wow, why not just rename this site BeckMatters since that's all MMA posts these days.

      Get with it people, HELLO... the issue is the FCC will be in charge of the Internet! Not Glenn Beck....duh....

      Consider the FCC's efforts to protect Americans from "dirty words" in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, or its much-criticized deregulation of the media industry, or its narrowly-thwarted attempt to cripple video innovation with the Broadcast Flag.

      HELLO!! oh wait this aint a MediaMatters forum its a BeckMatters forum...

      -------------
      Report Abuse
      • Author by alienofwar (November 23, 2010 11:50 am ET)
        2  
        Get with it people, HELLO... the issue is the FCC will be in charge of the Internet! Not Glenn Beck....duh....


        Nobody implied that Beck would be on control of the internet.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by CrashGordon (November 23, 2010 12:04 pm ET)
          4 1
          No, in fact it was Beck who implied that the FCC would be in control of the content of the internet. In fact, the FCC won't be in control of the internet under Net Neutrality--they will merely be enforcing the fact that internet providers can't control the content.

          The reason that Beck appears so often on MMFA is because he is wrong so often and his misinformation is disseminated through radio and TV on a daily basis.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by wizbor4654 (November 23, 2010 12:18 pm ET)
            1 7
            The fact remains that most posters in this thread do nothing but bash the messenger instead of arguing (or even reading) the issue, MMA supports that tactic.

            Learn more about this issue! Shelly Roche is spot on.
            Judge Napolitano and Shelly Roche Discuss Net Neutrality
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtHhJ86dbcU
            ----------
            Report Abuse
            • Author by CrashGordon (November 23, 2010 12:49 pm ET)
              3 1
              Yes, but the reason MMFA exists is to combat misinformation coming from the right. MMFA assumes that the reader/poster can research the issue on their own. MMFA's purpose is to expose the lies and that means outing the liars. Technically, this is not a forum for discussing current events or issues (though when it's relevant to the conversation it is usually welcome), it is a forum for discussing the misinformation tactics of people like Beck--those who use their forums for spreading the misinformation.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by jacobktm (November 25, 2010 10:06 pm ET)
              1  
              Napolitano is an idiot too. You're going to appeal to the guy who believes that 911 was an inside job? Of course this may come across as merely an ad hominem attack. I'm not saying he's automatically wrong, what I am saying, though, is that people who express views which diminish their credibility (such as Napolitano with his 9-11 truth beliefs) really shouldn't just have their stated opinions immediately accepted as well researched fact. The reasoning behind this being that these people have already demonstrated that they aren't very good at forming an accurate understanding of what legitimate research they do or they are incapable of doing legitimate research. If Napolitano's research lead him to the position that 9-11 must have been an inside job then why should I think that his research into Net Neutrality has rendered more accurate results?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by jacobktm (November 25, 2010 10:12 pm ET)
                 
              And now I'm watching that video and if you didn't immediately laugh when Napolitano said "first they want to regulate the free market, banking, insurance, automobile manufacturing..." you're an idiot too, no offense.

              The new financial regulations are hardly the first financial regulations. The "free market" has been regulated for as long as its existed. I happen to work at a bank and when I started working there 5 years ago I had to learn about all sorts of banking regulations that have been in existence in some form or another and being frequently modified long before I was born.

              If you think that insurance and automobile manufacturing hasn't also been regulated for decades you're wrong again. Likewise with the free market in general (antitrust laws come immediately to mind). In reality "free markets" sound great, they're great in theory, but they suffer from certain market failures which can be effectively corrected by regulation.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by jacobktm (November 25, 2010 10:01 pm ET)
           
        Actually the idea strictly prohibits any one group being "in charge" of the internet. You're thinking about it the wrong way. The FCC will have a responsibility to uphold the law and the law will say that ISPs and other internet providers can't limit their content. I would love to see how the FCC can use this to control content themselves. I would further love to see why we should assume any discretion the FCC might have to control content would be negative in nature. Afterall the FCC controls cable networks and Fox News is still on the air. It controls radio networks and Beck, Rush, Savage, etc are still on the air...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by txthinker (November 23, 2010 4:22 pm ET)
      3 2
      Glenn Beck again claimed that proposed net neutrality rules are "basically a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet" and would allow the government to "control what you see on the Internet."
      What we really need is a "Sanity Doctrine" that would ban psychotics like Glenn Beck from the Internet and the airwaves......
      Report Abuse