It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Beginning Of End Of The Internet – FCC Approves Proposed “Net Neutrality” Rules 3-2 – Risk &

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Looks like we have to pay more for the internet! We are all sc**ed again by our Government.




U.S. telecommunications regulators on Thursday formally proposed new "net neutrality" rules that may let internet service providers charge content companies for faster and more reliable delivery of their traffic to users.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler has come under fire from consumer advocates and technology companies for proposing to allow some "commercially reasonable" deals in which content companies could pay broadband providers to prioritize traffic on their networks.




www.cbc.ca...




posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I just shared this story on my Facebook. They are stating they don't care about protests. I say lets make them care.

This shows that they have absolutely no care whatsoever for the people of this country and what those people want.

Maybe they would care if every internet user in the country began knocking on their door. What if we had a million plus people demanding they change this? Would they care then? What if we placed people outside of their house, would they begin to think about what privacy means then?

These people are crazy! They are getting cocky, and deserve to be put back into their place.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
It's funny, the rest of the 1st world is moving towards free internet for everyone (already the case countrywide in Japan), meanwhile here in the US we are trying to make it more expensive... I'd laugh if I weren't so depressed.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Google has already done this in part for the Mid west.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: andr3w68

I wish I had the time ...I would join the march on Washington...But I have a family to take care of.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: nighthawk1954
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Google has already done this in part for the Mid west.


If Google is offering free internet, you can bet there is a cost. It might not be measurable in monetary terms.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: nighthawk1954
a reply to: andr3w68

I wish I had the time ...I would join the march on Washington...But I have a family to take care of.


Agreed, and this is why America is going to where it is. They have us pre-occupied with taking care of our own. I fall into the same category.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
What can we excpect when we put a Cable industry Lobbyist as the head of the FCC.


Can we really not see through the blatancy of the corporation of American government?

An Open and free internet was a mistake, any way you cut it, this fixes that.

Now someone could set a high bar of entrance to this public forum of free thought.

Your provider doesn't like what a companies doing? Charge them a arm and a leg for their internet traffic, or cut it down to a trickle.

Sure, thats competitive,

It would be like the oil company trying to bill you for the gas, while billing any place you drive to for the privilege of getting you there with their gas...



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
3 years ago I paid $25.00 for High speed inter net...it now cost me $49.00!



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
So who in media/internet or soon to BE in media/internet is related to leaders in Congress and/or The White House?

I honestly don't know the answer to that question but I'll bet we'll find interesting connections between those with the most to gain in profiting from all this and those who pushed and guided this all through to become reality. It's been hanging around long enough....

Call me cynical, but nothing ever seems to happen for just the 'stated' or obvious reasons anymore. (looks under bed) Nope.. no logic to be found there.. Must be a smoking gun of logic hidden in there somewhere though. I'd swear to it.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
So who in media/internet or soon to BE in media/internet is related to leaders in Congress and/or The White House?

I honestly don't know the answer to that question but I'll bet we'll find interesting connections between those with the most to gain in profiting from all this and those who pushed and guided this all through to become reality. It's been hanging around long enough....

Call me cynical, but nothing ever seems to happen for just the 'stated' or obvious reasons anymore. (looks under bed) Nope.. no logic to be found there.. Must be a smoking gun of logic hidden in there somewhere though. I'd swear to it.


Wrabbit, its not Hidden,


In recognition of his work in promoting the wireless industry, Wheeler was inducted into the Wireless Hall of Fame in 2003, and in 2009, as a result of his work in promoting the growth and prosperity of the cable television industry and its stakeholders, was inducted into the Cable Television Hall of Fame.[2][6][7] He is the only member of both halls of fame.[3] Cablevision magazine named Wheeler one of the 20 most influential individuals in its history during cable's 20th anniversary in 1995.[2]


Right to Obama, Right from the Cable industry lobby.

The president put a man who made it his lifes work to Promote the Cable and wireless industry in charge of the FCC, thats mingling of business with regulation that wreaks to high heaven.
edit on 15-5-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I'm of two minds about this. I don't like the idea of the government taking over the Internet like a public utility. Look at how much our other public utilities have crumbled under government regulation and management, not to mention the question of whether or not this opens the door to censorship.

Then there is the question of who actually went to all the hard work of building the Internet networks we have now. The government wasn't out their laying the cable and building the networks we use. It was the telecoms, love 'em or not, who did that. So, they made the investment of capital to build the networks and should control them. I agree that it's dirty business to choke some with usurious fees, especially if you're using Congress to choke off any competition to your networks.

But I think either way we look at it, we're screwed. Putting government in charge never makes anything better. If they take charge, do they then start charging sales tax for example? I wouldn't put it past them citing their need to maintain the network and that revenue would then be used for everything else.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
This is BAD and it's going to be too subtle for most people to notice.

The way I see it you're still going to be able to view any site you want, but the page load speed is going to be choked back if the site owner doesn't pay. People don't like slow sites, generally they'll just click the back button and look for something else.

Rumor has it that Google uses page load times in it's ranking algorithm, potentially meaning that those sites that don't pay, (therefore slower), are going to get pushed lower down in Google's index, making them less "findable" (This regardless of the quality of the content).

Plus, I imagine, just as Google chooses not to allow advertising for certain types of sites, the isp's will dis-allow preferential bandwidth for "certain" types of sites.

This is really bad for the little guy and startups on a shoe string. Yet another area where the barrier to entry is being raised to make sure that those that have get more and those that don't have are never going to.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: nighthawk1954
It probably won't happen but if none of those companies pay for better service wouldn't it just become moot? I'm not that informed on this so maybe that's a stupid question.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit
No for the free super fast internet ya just have to put up with their adds.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I don't mean to bring politics into the discussion, and if it is off topic please remove, but all the Democrats voted in favor it. Doesn't this go against everything a liberal leaning individual believes in?



edit on 15-5-2014 by Dapaga because: error



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dapaga
I don't mean to bring politics into the discussion, and if it is off topic please remove, but all the Democrats voted in favor it. Doesn't this go against everything a liberal leaning individual believes in?




Not if it allows them to control the media, and they are dying to control the internet. Remember, they are hypocrites of the highest order.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Then there is the question of who actually went to all the hard work of building the Internet networks we have now. The government wasn't out their laying the cable and building the networks we use. It was the telecoms, love 'em or not, who did that. So, they made the investment of capital to build the networks and should control them. I agree that it's dirty business to choke some with usurious fees, especially if you're using Congress to choke off any competition to your networks.


This isn't true. In the late 90's the government offered a deal to the telcoms at the time. They were given a lot of money (hundreds of billions) to build a broadband network. They took the money then refused to do any work. After getting screwed over the government then built the network and as a concession to the demands that "government can't run anything" handed it over to the telcoms for free on the stipulation that they would pass the cost savings along to the customer. The telcoms gladly took the network but didn't pass along the savings... we have very high monthly access fees compared to most of the developed world.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dapaga
I don't mean to bring politics into the discussion, and if it is off topic please remove, but all the Democrats voted in favor it. Doesn't this go against everything a liberal leaning individual believes in?




Congress doesn't understand technology, it goes beyond party affiliation. They simply don't understand what they're voting on. It's not just congress either, a large portion of the population has no concept of what Net Neutrality is or why it matters. Even here on ATS you can get a ton of posters in favor of removing it which largely stems from ignorance over what it actually means. If this were driving rather than data it's saying the oil company can charge you for your gas, charge you for access to the road, and then charge you for access to leave the road and arrive at your destination... and then charge your destination for letting you drive to them in the first place.
edit on 19-5-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 03:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: nighthawk1954
a reply to: andr3w68

I wish I had the time ...I would join the march on Washington...But I have a family to take care of.


Bit of a lame excuse.

You think all those that have fought for you past freedoms your loseing didnt have family either?




top topics



 
8

log in

join