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.

 

All Four Internet Service Giants Allegedly Violated Last Remaining Net Neutrality Rule

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
www.commondreams.org...

I wanted to share this article with you, not only to point out the duplicity of the internet giants but to quote a very nicely written paragraph on Net Netrality.

First the defining paragraph:




The letters come as the FCC continues a long-standing debate over whether to abolish net neutrality entirely and instead establish a discriminatory "paid prioritization" model that would create fast and slow internet lanes, allowing wealthy companies to simply pay ISPs for speedier services, while those without as much capital would be forced to contend with sluggish or unreliable connections and loading times.

The model was introduced by FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries. While supporters say the proposal would not lead to "commercially unreasonable" arrangements with big companies, numerous advocacy and internet freedom organizations have opposed and disputed it, noting that it would risk development opportunities for new startups and allow providers to charge customers more for services.



Note the statement of purpose from both extremes of the issue.

Now this article is not about net neutrality but the big four:




T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon have all been accused of violating the transparency rule left in place to help safeguard net neutrality after a federal appeals court ruling knocked down several anti-discrimination and anti-blocking regulations.

The transparency requirement was upheld to ensure that carriers disclose their information about network performance and management policies, but consumer watchdog group Public Knowledge on Wednesday sent letters to the companies accusing them of shrouding their throttling plans in secrecy and demanding that they disclose or suspend the practices.


Now it seems only fair that these companies declose their "usage data" (I don't even know the correct name for aggreate data flow over a given system at any given time) and policies/prices for different 'throughput' rates.

Many believe that Internet Service should be considered a common carrier that provides uniform service regardless of content or it's perceived value.

The possibility (read actuality) that Service Providers would 'slow down' or 'stop' access to new businsesses with limited capital is a foregone conclusion. It is a Payola scheme, pure and simple.

And another reason to stop the revolving door between big business and the regulatory & legislative bodies that oversee their activities.

Time for 100% publically funded elections, in the USA.




posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
www.commondreams.org...

I wanted to share this article with you, not only to point out the duplicity of the internet giants but to quote a very nicely written paragraph on Net Netrality.

First the defining paragraph:




The letters come as the FCC continues a long-standing debate over whether to abolish net neutrality entirely and instead establish a discriminatory "paid prioritization" model that would create fast and slow internet lanes, allowing wealthy companies to simply pay ISPs for speedier services, while those without as much capital would be forced to contend with sluggish or unreliable connections and loading times.

The model was introduced by FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries. While supporters say the proposal would not lead to "commercially unreasonable" arrangements with big companies, numerous advocacy and internet freedom organizations have opposed and disputed it, noting that it would risk development opportunities for new startups and allow providers to charge customers more for services.



Note the statement of purpose from both extremes of the issue.

Now this article is not about net neutrality but the big four:

Now it seems only fair that these companies declose their "usage data" (I don't even know the correct name for aggreate data flow over a given system at any given time) and policies/prices for different 'throughput' rates.
.


The term is called "traffic shaping". It's a bit like having a freeway with all sorts of traffic going along it. Data is split up into packets which are the digital equivalent of postcards, envelopes, pizza boxes, large boxes and containers.
On a scale of things, Instant messaging is like pizza delivery or postcards (



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
The issue at hand is just what Netflix said. Customers pay for internet service, those same customers pay for Netflix. Why should Netflix pay a second time for what their customers have already paid for?!

The issue for me seems to be the alphabet agency making the rules doesn't have jurisdiction and whoever has jurisdiction needs to step up and male this right.

Until then I'll keep deleting the throttle file on my phone and use the unlimited data I pay for.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd




Time for 100% publically funded elections, in the USA.


Agreed for a huge huge start.
It should not take half a billion dollars to run for office like in the last election.

2. All congregational members and lobbing discussions are to be recorded and made available to the public.

3. Limited congressional term limits.

4. Restructure existing lobbying practices using technology so the majority can be heard on what is important versus the few richest corporations board of directors that always get their way.

5. Close revolving doors between gov't and private industries.


BTW a big reason why net neutrality is being attacked is because the people got to voice their opinions which bypassed the MSM (TV,Radio,etc) controls. Those communication medium were controllable and they got to pick what you heard and who got to talk. With the internet everyone had a fair voice and the communication medium was two way and not a one way like radio and TV. With undoing net neutrality they will be able to censor website that don't follow the set dialogue.

Undoing net neutrality is basically a form of censorship.



edit on 09831America/ChicagoTue, 12 Aug 2014 13:09:59 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Isn't this sales pitch model illegal?

I heard a story of a guy who used to sell sewing machines. He said he'd advertise a really crappy machine for x amount of dollars, and provide a coupon for a huge discount on the crap machine. Then he'd bait and switch, selling the nicer more expensive machine, and since the coupon was already there, the consumers used the coupon and eventually, through a trick of mind, bought the better machine.

The throttling plan of the big four is the switch. They've had this information highway blueprint on the side for a while. I don't like it. I wish free net all speeds would be as common in cities as streetlamps and stop signs are free for all there. No matter what you pay for you're monitored by military and government now. Asking consumers to finance the monitoring, and then asking some to get faster internet so they can pay higher money to be monitored and datamined as much as the lower/poorer internet groups, that's odd. The next level would be what, state supplemented internet? More unnecessary segmentation, keep the cost in the computer not the net. Internet ought to be there for those who desire to use it, like as a merit system, as much as a street sidewalk is used.




top topics
 
9

log in

join