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.

 

Epic Stupid: Ted Cruz - "Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet"

page: 14
140
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
If major ISPs were to do half the things claimed in this thread...

Verizon brought a lawsuit against the government to do what is described in this thread.

Comcast IS doing it, and AT&T has said they would create tiers.


It's not an "IF".
edit on 10-11-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-11-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I've read through some of the internet security bills that have been attempted in the past.

The wording of such bills always tend towards denying access to internet sites that whoever in power disagrees with.




Section3 - Defines "cybersecurity" as "information security" which is defined (in federal code provisions related to the coordination of federal information policy) as protecting information and information systems from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction in order to provide integrity, confidentiality, availability, and authentication, as those terms are further defined in specified federal code provisions related to information security. Defines "information system" as any equipment or interconnected system or subsystems of equipment that is used in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information, including certain industrial control systems.

Source

Say, Goodbye ATS.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Well, thank you very much for coming out of the closet...




Grow up. Marxism isn't a dirty word.


Well, I guess that depends on who you are.

Grow up? Seriously?



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I have been on this fence about this for a while but I guess I will give my opinion.

My problem with this whole conversation has to do with force.

Do I want the internet to be neutral? Of course I do, I love the internet and I know everyone here has had their lives changed by it.

But do I want the government to force ISP's to provide an equal playing field? Well no.

To use the threat of violence against non violent actors is immoral, and I will not advocate for something that goes against my values.

These ISP's should make the decision voluntarily to provide an affordable and accessible internet to its subscribers. That decision should not be forced upon them. To do so just reinforces the twisted idea that state sponsored violence is acceptable.

If these IPS's refuse to make a reasonable and moral decision then we as customers have the moral responsibility to not indulge in their service.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

No they can't sell to different consumers differently. If they could strong arm hybrids out of the market, they would... they just legally can't. They do keep their competition down in other ways though, just ask Tesla Motors.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Let's be honest.

If their was a Karl or even a Groucho Marx on the ticket with an (r) after their name. The Conservative Entertainment Complex aficionados would vote for him like good little Drones.




posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   
It's a LOSE LOSE situations guys.

Government Control = Government Security of the Internet. We all know what Security means. Censorship. Probably some new taxes as well to support the Office of Internet Regulation and Reform, or some other BS title.

Corporate Control = Pay Per View Internet Services. Again, censorship. Plus, Mo Money, Mo Money, Mo Money for the Corporations. Where will they get their money??? From the Internet Companies. Where do they get their money??? From the Customer.

Either way, we get F*cked. Like Always.

You want to start winning some battles??? Start with stopping Corporations from BUYING THE GOVERNMENT!!.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

gov issued Internet ID to be issued down the road maybe? Big Brother decides who gets to be on Internet and when? I See only Orwellian control in "net neutrality".

I have heard that when Communism was established in Russia, all the atmosphere was like a lifeless grey pall. Even the term net neutrality reminds me of people in grey uniforms wearing grey caps.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Openeye
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
If these IPS's refuse to make a reasonable and moral decision then we as customers have the moral responsibility to not indulge in their service.


But that is really the point though, isn't it.

Without Common Carrier.

It's either Their way or No highway.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus




Perhaps instead of screeching at Ted Cruz that he's not very technical, we can see that he is interested in protecting free speech, not regulating it.


If he is for free speech than he is for net neutrality. Without net neutrality only the people that can afford to pay EXTRA and follow the agenda get heard.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Hefficide

How many times has the Internet busted a story that the MSM then had egg on their face because they refused to cover it?

You put the government in charge of the 'net and they can then start to regulate what you see on it ... you know, like those embarrassing stories.

How many times have we heard them opine that Internet bloggers aren't proper journalists lately? Do you want any part of the government anywhere near tampering with the effectiveness of the Internet as a communications medium?

I think there are better ways to increase innovation and competition on the 'net than making it a government entity.

Don't forget how keen they are to use it spy on us, too.



If you give the ISP's the ability to charge bloggers based on their page views you'll price them out of the business. Anyone popular will have to pay up, which means they can no longer compete. Blogs get the jump on the CNN's and Fox's of the world all the time, and a large part of that is because the barrier to entry on the internet is low right now. Removing Net Neutrality increases the barrier to entry.


originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
How many people in the US are dissatisfied with the speed of available internet connections? I don't hear much griping about it in developed regions. That might change if more Americans knew what hi-speed was like overseas, and began to demand better service for their money.


You are aware are you not that ISP's effectively function as monopolies? In my town the ISP even got a 100 year exclusive contract. The town isn't allowed to allow any other ISP to move in and compete for 100 years starting from 2005 or so. That was the price of bringing internet access to the area.


originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
And Exxon could start charging double to hybrid drivers. But they won't because that would be bad for business.

If major ISPs were to do half the things claimed in this thread, internet service would no longer be valued as it is today. Not only would people drop ISPs, there would be a public backlash against the ISPs responsible.


No. Exxon cannot do that. To start with they have no way to distinguish between what car their gasoline is being placed into. On top of that, if they were to raise prices the marketplace is saturated enough that companies will purchase their oil elsewhere. This is not true of internet service. There are only a handful of telecom companies throughout the US and even the small independent ones get their access by leasing unused space from the bigger companies.

There is no if when it comes to the ISP's doing these things. They have already done them. Look at our net neutrality bill that passed a few years back that essentially said wireless networks get no protections. You're metered by the minute or megabyte there with outlandish rates. And that's a more open system than what is available for wired networks and we've already seen what they did to Netflix.


originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
I agree - this looks like a Progressive (i.e. Fascist) power grab over the last realm of truly free speech. Of course it needs a disguise, so they give it the misnomer 'net neutrality' and pitch it as a defense against greedy corporations by our one and only savior: the Federal government.

Nevermind what happens later! We have to save the internet from a future threat, now!


You seem to be caught up on the definition of Net Neutrality. It refers to the idea that all packets are treated neutral. One packet of data doesn't get preference over another. That is where the name comes from. As far as this being a leftist power grab, Bush has been the friendliest president to our internet so far, and Obama (who campaigned on Net Neutrality) has overseen the FCC while they've passed some of the worst possible laws in regards to our networks. They're about to do so again when Verizon wins this case. Despite what they say, the Democrats in Washington have not supported Net Neutrality.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Openeye

I get what you're saying but in this context, violence is also attributed and more justly to the major providers. We the people are telling our government we don't want fast lanes, we want the internet regarded as a utility. I think this is an area the government actually sees the wisdom in listening to the people.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: BritofTexas

If that is the case then we must act morally. I know not having access to the net seems crazy, but I think repaying immorality with immorality is even more absurd. Especially when we are talking about using state violence to enforce our morality.

Its moral hypocrisy.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: GodEmperor

gov issued Internet ID to be issued down the road maybe? Big Brother decides who gets to be on Internet and when?


Nope.

What you are talking about is for VOTING not for the Internet.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Openeye

That is what will happen both by choice and default, but how many small web businesses can survive the hit? Additionally, there will be massive unrest.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm
I actually agree with you this time!
Who would have guessed.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Openeye

So any group of people with a lot of money can just come in and do anything they want to do because you don’t want the government to referee and keep things reasonably fair...
That's the law of the jungle not freedom

With your reasoning the drug companies can poison our children and you don’t want to stop it because of some distorted idea of freedom and fear of government

The food companies can also poison us

What do you think a government is for?

Is freedom to you letting monopolies just take over the country's commerce?

A government suppose to do the will of the people not the will of a few rich people who want to monopolize the resources and commerce

edit on 10-11-2014 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




I think this is an area the government actually sees the wisdom in listening to the people.


Unfortunately, they have no reason to listen to the people? Like Roosevelt said 'Presidents are selected, not elected.' Which is also confirmed by Lawrence Lessig the Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, and director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University.



Our politicians need the money of the lobbyist more so than our votes. Without pre approval or the money of the lobbyist they aren't even make it to the ballot.

The only prayer we have is that the Telecom Oligopoly has a conflicting industry with the Tech Industry.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74


violence is also attributed and more justly to the major providers.


I just don't see how this is the case. Have they threatened anyone with physical harm? Have they followed through with those threats? Are the rates they propose so demonstrably high that only the 1% could afford them (which would still not really be violence, unless you are using some form of Marxist theory)?

The only one threatening violence is the state. If the ISP's refuse to follow the rules they will be fined, and if they refuse to pay the fine they will be arrested, and if they resist arrest they will be killed.
edit on 10-11-2014 by Openeye because: I suck at grammar



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Openeye
a reply to: BritofTexas
Its moral hypocrisy.


Is itMoral Hypocrisy?

What about a two tiered speed limit on the Interstate?

Only 34 year olds named Kevin may drive in the left hand lane. The rest of us have to stick to the right hand lane?

Tolls for everyone who does not drive a Chevy during Rush Hour?




top topics



 
140
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join