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: 18
140
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Aazadan




Do you have any idea how long it takes to download a program or file in nations that have a responsible internet policy? Here in the US we are near the bottom in terms of internet speed and that's on our wired networks where things aren't as bad. Have you ever compared our wireless networks such as cell phones to nations like Japan or just about anywhere in Europe? The difference is staggering.


I admit I've never been in Japan. Would you mind delineating this responsible Internet policy in foreign countries, and please compare and contrast for me? This is a serious question and not a snarky one. I am genuinely interested. Thanks

Anyway, I was really comparing network speeds of today with that of say 1997? Broadband vs dial up? Did net neutrality bring that?


Not ignoring this but multitasking right now and I need to look up price/service options to give you some more precise details than what I know offhand. Basically though you generally get about 5x the speed for half the price. In South Korea which has the best internet you get 10x the speed for 1/10 the price. In Europe cell phones offer significantly better plans for a lot less money. Our platinum tier cell phone plans have about the same terms as their bargain basement $10/month plans and their phones actually work on networks the world over. Most US phones can only be used inside the US.


originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: interupt42




Seriously their is no good that comes from undoing net neutrality.


So you are saying we already have net neutrality? Then why the need for government intervention???? Someone else said this too. Please help me understand.


Because of lobbyists. The corporations are quite literally paying the government to step in and legislate away competition. The small government plan is the Net Neutrality plan.

edit on 10-11-2014 by Aazadan because: typo, 10x not 100x




posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Gryphon66

And the Patriot Act is all about being a patriot.


Oh, thank god! A meaningless off-topic post that's intended to sound slyly cynical yet subtly wise!

Still the same universe. Just a momentary aberration. All is well.



Beezzer, pardon the jest up there, it was funnier before written down.

So, let me get this correctly inputed ... you are in favor of net neutrality, but against it if the government guarantees it?

Do you think the government isn't in control of the 'net now?
edit on 21Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:57:32 -060014p0920141166 by Gryphon66 because: NOted



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Google can only put forth so much money. I don't think you understand how expensive these networks are to build.


I understand how much they cost, and I agree for someone to have the infrastructure to compete with the major ISP's would be a long process.

But Google already has infrastructure in certain cities. So if a tiered system became the norm for most of the ISP's around the country Google would still be able to experiment with a non tiered system in select locations.

Not only that but if these tiered systems are really unpopular and in turn cause a loss in customer base, why wouldn't AT&T or Verizon (just as an example) decide to change back to a "net neutrality" like system in an attempt to take customers away from say Comcast which has a tiered system?

This is another reason I think nothing is going to significantly change, because to alienate a massive portion of your customers is bad business.


You and I built it with our tax dollars


No the state did with money they stole from me, I didn't consent to anything.

Listen like I said in my previous post I want the net to remain neutral but I refuse to use violence to do so.
edit on 10-11-2014 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus




So you are saying we already have net neutrality? Then why the need for government intervention???? Someone else said this too. Please help me understand.


We had net neutrality during the boom years of the internet.

Then recently the Telecom industry spent hundreds of millions to lobby congress to undo it and they were successful.

Than we had several people in the tech industry including large opposing Oligopolies (netflix,google,etc) come forward and raise hell.
So if I recall correctly it was not going to be a switch that they turned on overnight. they were going to slowly ease into it.

Basically we bought some time but in essence we don't technically have net neutrality any longer. We are in a grey area of transition to a non net neutrality environment.

However, again more hell was raised on this issue and pressure was put on the FCC for undoing net neutrality. Hence now the FCC is toying with the idea of making the internet a utility like industry in order to give them more power over the ISP.

In the end the FCC is in cahoots with the people they are suppose to regulate so no matter what we are going to loose net neutrality .
www.opensecrets.org...

The question is at what speed overnight or 5 or 1o years down the road.


edit on 571130America/ChicagoMon, 10 Nov 2014 21:57:41 -0600000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

*sigh*

I'll type slowly so you can understand. . .

The GOP holds majority in the House and Senate. Any oversight committees will be run by the GOP.

So in theory, you could find Ted Cruz even in charge of the internet or "net neutrality".

Hope that puts some starch in your garter.




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

Oh, thank you Beezzer, it's really an honor to be spoken down to by an intellectual heavyweight such as yourself!

So, you're like Schrodinger's Bunny ... you're for net neutrality and against it at the same time?

You would rather have an alphabet agency in charge rather than the duly elected mandated anointed by God Congress?

YOU'RE NOT TYPING SLOW ENOUGH !!!



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Good bye.

Apparently even my rants against the GOP aren't good enough.

I don't know why I bother.

So before I violate any T&C I'm signing out.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

ok thanks for that info






posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Gryphon66
*sigh*
I'll type slowly so you can understand. . .
The GOP holds majority in the House and Senate. Any oversight committees will be run by the GOP.
So in theory, you could find Ted Cruz even in charge of the internet or "net neutrality".
Hope that puts some starch in your garter.


Will he also force anybody called Bubba to drive at 40mph on the Interstate?

You really are overreaching with your fear mongering this time.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




You would rather have an alphabet agency in charge


You know what? The alphabets are already in charge, especially NSA... and you think more government intervention is going to make it better?
I don't want to get in trouble so I'll stop with this.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Openeye




But Google already has infrastructure in certain cities. So if a tiered system became the norm for most of the ISP's around the country Google would still be able to experiment with a non tiered system in select locations.

Google is only in a very small market and the Telecom industry has made exclusive lease agreements with many cities which makes it extremely hard for google to get in those markets. In addition, the Telecom team of lawyers have been stonewalling googles attempts to implement their services.




Not only that but if these tiered systems are really unpopular and in turn cause a loss in customer base, why wouldn't AT&T or Verizon (just as an example) decide to change back to a "net neutrality" like system in an attempt to take customers away from say Comcast which has a tiered system?


The Telecom industry is composed of an Oligopoly (Att,Verizon,Comcast) that ensures they don't really compete with each other.





This is another reason I think nothing is going to significantly change, because to alienate a massive portion of your customers is bad business.


Att , comcast, and Verizon year after year are consistently rated the most hated companies by its customers. Ask yourself how can such companies with such hatred from its customers not only survive but actually keep getting record profit gains year after year. The answer is , its customers don't have a choice they have no competition but to use them.

They already have alienated their customers, but their customers have no choice but to take it.




I refuse to use violence to do so.

I agree with that.


edit on 131130America/ChicagoMon, 10 Nov 2014 22:13:07 -0600up3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Well, as far as I understand it, your favored one line responses are also against T&C ... so ... /shrug ... you're probably safe.

The point is that, somewhere, sometime we're going to have to start trusting each other again to some degree. The Republican doom singers have been prophesying for a week that the President was just going to sit in a sulk and draw big red X's on everything the Republicans send over, and then, when he makes an overture to work together on something that almost everyone even on ATS agrees is a good thing (net neutrality) you're still not sure it's a good idea.

Must this really be a fight to the death, red or blue, Beezzer?



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5




You don't think Comcast et al is monitoring your usage??? And Google knows more about you than your mom.



Lol Google knows things about people that would probably make most of their moms cry and hang their heads in collective shame.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Please stay on topic....



You are responsible for your own posts. and We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

That means name-calling and snide remarks are not only not needed but also are not welcome.....Community Announcement re: Decorum

Proceed accordingly.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BritofTexas

The GOP led Congress is our Legislative Branch for the next two years. The Executive Branch is offering to work to promote something that almost all of us can agree on.


edit on 22Mon, 10 Nov 2014 22:23:17 -060014p1020141166 by Gryphon66 because: Because suddenly making jokes with each other is "off topic"



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Do you believe him??



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Is Cruz referring to a net neutrality bill, or the concept itself? That's something I'd have to have a clear understanding of before calling someone epically stupid... but that's just me I guess.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

What God Congress? since when was the congress was called a God congress? this is was why Religion should kept out of politics.
edit on 10-11-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: AgentShillington
NOt only do they want to use the "legal" avenue of the FCC to interfere with the internet to implement this 1934 style control....that maybe what I mean by "1930's style"...


Federal Communications Act (1934) As well as permitting rival political candidates equal time, the FCC maintains a rigorous “fairness doctrine,” whereby both or all sides involved in any issue of public importance must be permitted to use the media in their own interest. The radio or TV station must in its turn give both or all sides equal coverage. The regulations covering fairness are as follows: (a) When, during the presentation of views on a controversial issue of public importance, an attack is made on the honesty, character, integrity or like personal qualities of an identified person or group, the licensee shall, within a reasonable time and in no later than one week after the attack, transmit to the person or group attacked (1) notification of the date, time and identification of the broadcast; (2) a script or tape (or an accurate summary if a script or tape is not available) of the attack; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity to respond over the licensee’s facilities. (b) The provisions of paragraph (a) . . . shall not be applicable (1) to attacks on foreign groups or foreign public figures; (2) to personal attacks which are made by legally qualified candidates, their authorized spokesmen, or those associated with them in the campaign, or other such candidates, their authorized spokesmen, or those associated with them in the campaign; and (3) to bona fide newscasts . . . interviews . . . and on-the-spot news coverage of a bona fide news event. Section (b) also covers commentary and analysis but not the licensee’s editorials, which must offer the right of reply as in section (b).


They also want the ability to fine or shut down sites like ATS for anything that doesn't fit the FCC's legal definition of "decency"..... so they use the term "neutral' as a cloak for their intentions....




The HSS had come under Federal Communications fire in the past; more than half of the $4.5 million in fees that the FCC has imposed since 1990 has been on Stern. The show settled five FCC actions related to indecency for $1.71 million in 1995, paid by Viacom-owned Infinity Broadcasting, which syndicates Stern’s show. It has not been hit by a fine since 1998. Heightened attention to indecent content resulted from reactions to the exposing of Janet Jackson’s breast by Justin Timberlake to 90 million viewers during Viacom’s CBS’s Super Bowl halftime show on February 1, 2004. Responding, apparently, to pressure from federal regulators and lawmakers who indicate that too much radio and TV programming has become unsuitable for children, Clear Channel Communications, the biggest radio broadcaster in the United States, on February 24, 2004, temporarily suspended HSS from its stations. The suspension by six stations owned by Clear Channel came on the heels of an announcement of a policy to prevent the broadcasting of indecent content; Stern’s content was labeled: “vulgar, offensive and insulting, not just to women and African Americans but to anyone with a sense of common decency” by Clear Channel’s president, John Hogan. The show was still available on about 60 other stations nationwide. Succeeding complaints to the FCC focused renewed attention to Stern’s show. On March 18 the FCC proposed the maximum fine of $27,500 for a July 26, 2001, show resulting from a Detroit listener’s complaint about featured discussions of sexual practices and techniques. Another complaint about two segments of the April 9, 2003, broadcast— a discussion of the use of “Sphincterine,” a purported personal hygiene product designed for use prior to sexual activity, “including references to sexual and excretory organs and activities.”





The FCC appears to be moving toward a new approach, even considering the revoking of station licenses. In March 2004 the FCC issued orders defining new guidelines. The long-standing rule that violations must be “repeated” before a penalty can be imposed has been changed to an isolated incident. Vague categories of forbidden speech have been provided by the new rules, at the end of which the Commission indicates it will “analyze other profane words on a case-by-case basis.” Further, the House of Representatives has voted to raise the maximum fine for broadcasting indecent material from $27,500 to $500,000 and to require the FCC to consider revoking a broadcast license after three indecency violations; similar legislation is pending in the Senate. (Indecency complaints received by the FCC rose from 14,000 in 2002 to nearly 540,000 in the first months of 2003.) Stern’s reaction was to suggest that he was the victim of a “McCarthy-type witch hunt by the FCC and the Bush 552 Stern, Howard administration,” calling Attorney General John Ashcroft “insane” and comparing the Bush administration to the Nazis and the Taliban. The FCC, along with its allies in Congress, was “expressing and imposing their opinions and rights to tell us all who and what we may listen to and what and how we should think about our lives.” In a parallel reaction to a threat from the Federal Communications Commission for broadcasting graphic and sexually explicit material, Clear Channel fired, on February 24, 2004, the host, Todd Clem, of a program called “Bubba the Love Sponge.” Clear Channel has agreed to pay more than $700,000 in penalties broadcast on four stations which carried the program.


In the end it maybe the threat of fines and or shutdown and loss of license that should give one pause to consider giving the FCC any territory on the net at all...the FCC has basically ruined TV and radio for in depth content(not just obscene content), it will try to do the same for the net under this guise of being "fair" or "neutral"....and the net activists seemingly have handed them the language and surveyed and polled talking points with which to guide people to the conclusion that best suites the FCC's needs and the corporations needs. Also notice the similarity to the three strikes internet suspension law meme....the FCC also has a 3 strikes and you lose a license....well if they get control in order to license websites that are "bona fide" news groups, or so on then they steal the net so to speak from us, which seems impossible but notice the legal intentions and way they talk about this subject....Cruz maybe right, just as they have broken the medical system and increased costs it seems yet again the same tactics being attempted to be applied to the net. They are all against open source transparency cause they wouldn't be able to pass the laws if they just said it up front what they intend to do....it seems like a BS trap to me.
edit on 10-11-2014 by bubbabuddha because: added thoughts



new topics

top topics



 
140
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join