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.

 

Next Level BS #19: Net Neutrality, Ted Cruz, and Obamacare

page: 3
54
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: kykweer
a reply to: theNLBS

I know and understand the frustration Americans must be feeling, but as an outsider I am jealous and in administration of your country (and please I am not a shill), but it is extremely awesome that you guys have ACCESS to this kinds of information that Joe and NLBS presents.

Joe you guys are doing a great job.


It's because when things start happening we don't like we put a stop to it. We just haven't been doing it as much recently and a lot of people are spreading a lot of bad ideas because of the Internet and people are very confused right now.

A lot of it has to do with media but also education, in my opinion of course.




posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

The feds are already involved. This reclassification improves it. The EFF agrees.


The EFF states the reclassification and Net Neutrality is dependent on forebearance. In theory, forebearance would limit the ability of the FCC to change regulations without going through the public input route, which is a good thing. I guess my concern is can we trust them to take public input, and use it in their decisions down the road? As is probably evident by now, I don't place a lot of trust in our government to do the right thing, regardless of laws and regulations.



The road to net neutrality began with the Bush administration in 2005. Obama is proposing no new laws or legislation.

Never said he was. I was referring to government, not administrations. Thank you for your time and quick response.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

You say in the video that there isn't a free market alternative to net neutrality in the US. Thats wrong. Instead of localities pushing small internet businesses out of the picture by excluding them from the telephone poles or giving them higher rates than the giants, towns could be required to give all companies equal access to the telephone poles.

Net neutrality is something I agree with as a way to patch over bad legislation with less bad legislation, but ultimately the free market solution is much more effective.

There is a reason we in the US pay MUCH HIGHER internet prices than other advanced countries in Europe and Asia is because of big business favoritism, that get in the way of lower prices. And no, big businesses are not the problem. The people who continue to vote in congress after they show favoritism to big business is the problem. The people are to blame. If there is a problem, you've got to fix it yourself. The age of groveling at the feet of careless politicians is over. Stand up and be a part of the solution, or just get out of the way for people who are.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard




Um. Leftist?? Good Gracious.


Yep, there's a lot of people here that even say they are left leaning or even claim to be Marxist or anarcho socialist etc. Not necessarily the owners though...
but yah, it's a very easy Google search(Google run by liberals and donated to BO) to find that George Soros himself is pushing net neutrality and funds leftist orgs, such as Free Press, to push it.

So yah there is a leftist push everywhere for net neutrality. Why? Because it advances their socialistic agenda and bigger government. Why people who profess to want an open Internet believe that BIg Brother is going to give them more freedom I don't know. All I can say is George Orwell was right)and he was even a socialist).



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: retiredTxn





which is a good thing. I guess my concern is can we trust them to take public input,

Of course not, and most certainly as long as "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it"
Nancy Pelosi has any say.

Here is the way I see it

Under Wheeler's plan, Internet regulation would be split between a highly regulated back end, where content providers deal with Internet service providers (ISPs), and a more lightly regulated front end, where consumers get their content from ISPs. This, so it's said, is a way to get around the decision of a federal appeals court that invalidated an earlier FCC attempt to institute net neutrality regulations.

Those who have a sense of history, and a wider angle of vision on the policy process, may be struck by something else. The FCC's plan, coming at the very time that the Federal Election Commission is looking for ways to regulate political speech on the Internet, the Justice Department is spying on journalists and the National Security Agency (NSA) is intercepting citizens' phone calls and email, would add yet another way in which government could insert itself into the speech business.



Of course, none of the net neutrality advocates are calling for anything like that, but that's always the way with unintended consequences, and it doesn't take much imagination to see how such rules could be misused to that end. It's really a pretty simple recipe: Add a cup of precedent to the right mix of FCC commissioners (it only takes three), and you have all that would be required to quash or chill prospective deals between ISPs and the "wrong kind" of content providers.


thehill.com...
edit on 12-11-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
So yah there is a leftist push everywhere for net neutrality...


So, what you're saying is, just because you see it as a "leftist push," it's a bad idea.

Are you aware of the current problems about to get worse if the horrific compromise "hybrid" approach of the FCC goes into play?

Why would the republicans support measures that stifle small businesses and potentially a massive industry?



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The way I understand it is that PreZ O has pressured the FCC to adopt net neutrality regulations. Supposedly, according to what I have been learning in the last 24 hours, Tom Wheeler was not necessarily on board with it entirely, but there's this supposed hybrid plan.....
I don't profess to know all there is to know about this.
I would love a better explanation of this FCC hybrid rule and how it might be different from what you and/or the O admin want to see happen???

Here I something from ZDNet on the FCC


The US regulator has pushed back against the US president's demands over net neutrality, reminding Obama that the FCC is not beholden to the White House.



The US communications regulator is currently thrashing out a new set of net neutrality rules, but the current proposal would allow for telecommunications and broadband providers to charge content providers, such as Netflix, for priority Internet fast-lanes. If content providers refused to pay additional rates, theoretically, this could result in throttled speeds for US subscribers -- or ISPs which produce their own content could slow down rivals in a bid to promote their own services.


www.zdnet.com...

And yet the Prez wants to reclassify the Internet as a public utility.... I do not like the idea of this, as government ruins everything it gets its claws into, and that includes GOP too.

Perhaps neither idea is good?
edit on 12-11-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

OMG laughing so hard. I just watched that prophetic movie today.


Part of the problem I see with people not supporting net neutrality is that they think of the internet as a commodity and that we have a free market versus the real Oligopoly controlled market.

1. The internet is NOT a commodity the The internet IS a global virtual economy in itself .

2. Net neutrality allowed for free market principles to exist. Without net neutrality you would have price fixing by the worst Oligopoly offender, the Telecom industry.


What Ted cruz is suggesting is that the following business tactics are fair and reasonable:

1. I go to purchase a truck and agree to pay $100 bucks for the ford truck with the dealer.

2. The dealer than goes to FORD and says I want a bigger cut of the money for this truck . Ford disagrees and doesn't give it to them.

3. The dealer comes back and still takes my money and says to bad and gives me a bicycle instead of the ford truck.
edit on 341130America/ChicagoWed, 12 Nov 2014 22:34:51 -0600up3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus




The way I understand it is that PreZ O has pressured the FCC to adopt net neutrality regulations


No the people and organizations that started the internet pressured the FCC to adopt net neutrality regulations.

Those same people and organizations along with net neutrality helped create the massively successful and possibility greatest innovation of our time, are the ones that pressuring the FCC to adopt net neutrality regulations.

The lobbyist are the ones that pressured the FCC , gov't and the president to undo net neutrality. Not the consumers nor the people that created the internet asked for the FCC to undo it.

edit on 421130America/ChicagoWed, 12 Nov 2014 22:42:41 -0600000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

I'm not for Oligopoly either but look at the example of how Prez O is pushing Common Core standards which involves a platform of high-stakes online testing and guess who profits from that? Microsoft and Pearson. (and I have yet to see any left leaning person on here decry that)


edit on 12-11-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

You didn't watch the video in the opening post of this thread?

Here's the relevant part from the telecommunications act, which be used if the Internet providers are reclassified under Title II Common Carrier.

Level playing field. No new laws. Simple. Every Internet Data Packet is equal.
This approach has been promoted by republicans like Bush and Justice Scalia since 2004-2005. A good portion of conservatives were in favor of this approach, until Obama was in favor of it.


The FCC's hybrid plan would require new laws, legislation, and regulations -- almost certainly a great deal more than the relatively simple 333 pages of the Telecommunications Act. The new regulations of the hybrid approach allow ISP's to have their way with Internet Data Packets, creating a legalized extortion racket where edge providers (like ATS) would need to pay subscriber ISP's (like Comcast) to be delivered on the "fast lane" instead of the "slow" or "slower" or "slowest" lanes. What is known about the proposal would even allow Comcast to alter the packets of ATS before you get them. It turns ISP's into Internet gatekeepers.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I confess I did not but I plan to. I do want to be informed, and it is probably in my own best interests to hear what Joe has to say. Thank you for your informed response and I am going to study this more.


edit on 12-11-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I agree neither the gov't nor Telecom lobbyist do what is best for the masses (consumer).

However, Net neutrality was passed through the gov't in the earlier days of the internet and ignored by the Telecom oligopoly because at the time it was an oversight on their part.

1. Net neutrality principles were established and created by scientist before the gov't or the Telecom industry saw the importance of the internet. So the net neutrality bill passed because at the time the gov't and the Telecom Oligopoly lacked any vision on the importance of the internet.

2. Then internet became a virtual world economy and a fertile ground for innovation and for small business to compete with the big guys. It became a huge global economic market place.

3. Then all the sudden the Gov't and the telecom lobbyist woke up and said holly cow this internet thing is huge.

They also realized that small business websites and blogs with opposing views from the lobbyist and gov't controlled Main Stream Media were getting more attention than their corporate controlled TV, Magazines, paper,radio, medium.

Then all the sudden the gov't and the Telecom Oligopoly got REALLY MOTIVATED to undo the one thing that allowed the internet to become a success and a global open free market.

Just recently this year is when the LOBBYIST not the people or the consumers asked for net neutrality to be undone.
edit on 041130America/ChicagoWed, 12 Nov 2014 23:04:02 -0600up3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I just found an article that the Chairman of Cisco Eng is against the Obam Net Neutrality plan, and his reasoning sure goes right along with what I posted earlier today from the Von Mises group on gov price fixing and how that affects market production.

www.pcworld.com...

Like it or not, this is how some businessmen in the industry see it.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord




The new regulations of the hybrid approach allow ISP's to have their way with Internet Data Packets, creating a legalized extortion racket where edge providers (like ATS) would need to pay subscriber ISP's (like Comcast) to be delivered on the "fast lane" instead of the "slow" or "slower" or "slowest" lanes.


Not only would ATS have to pay comcast for the better lane but ATS would also have to pay ATT and Verizon as well, because ATS users are all around the the US. Then what about Global non US ISP or smaller independents?

Glad SO you are willing to take that hit without passing any of those costs to us non paying users .

edit on 161130America/ChicagoWed, 12 Nov 2014 23:16:02 -0600up3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Ok Skeptic for whatever it's worth, I know you feel that this gov intervention will protect against greedy corporations but here is another view


In a statement released Tuesday, the president of this free nation proposed rewriting yet another law — as he has done with the failed ObamaCare and proposes to do with blanket amnesty — by executive action. In this case, it is the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which defines the Internet as lightly regulated under Title I. "Lightly regulated" means no control of content or access by the federal behemoth.



Obama wants the FCC to unilaterally put the Internet under heavily regulated Title II, which would apply 1934 Telecom Act landline law to the formerly unfettered and free Internet, in essence making the Web a government utility. Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has justifiably called the president's proposal "ObamaCare for the Internet."


news.investors.com...

Sorry, I just don't trust anything this Prez does, and why should I?



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus




Sorry, I just don't trust anything this Prez does, and why should I?


Good because neither do I. So you should be for net neutrality as well.

Despite what Obama says about net neutrality he allowed it to be undone. He allowed the FCC and TELECOM Oligopoly to have an open door policy between the two.

Also this is not a political issue, neither side really wants net neutrality because the Telecom Oligopoly is paying off both sides.

Its the PEOPLE that are pushing for net neutrality is not the DNC , the GOP, nor Obama . its the people that helped created the internet and the vast population of America (consumers) that want net neutrality.


edit on 311130America/ChicagoWed, 12 Nov 2014 23:31:54 -0600up3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42




Despite what Obama says about net neutrality he allowed it to be undone. He allowed the FCC and TELECOM Oligopoly to have an open door policy between the two.



He did? Then why did the FCC Chairman tell him that the FCC is not beholden to the WH?

And Darn, I would have hoped that in the 128 credit hours I took at the University I would have seen that term "net neutrality" and the mysterious scientist you say developed it at least once, in a book, or lecture, or a test, or on the Cisco Eng website, you know, something like that. Now I'm thinking I should go check all my tech books and see if that term is in there .



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus




He did? Then why did the FCC Chairman tell him that the FCC is not beholden to the WH?

For the same reason that a used car salesman tells you what you want to hear.

The same way that congress used strong language against the CEO of the companies that used the bailout money to get their million dollar bonus. However, despite the harsh language those same CEO flew back on their jets and cashed in their tax payer money bonus.

For the same reasons republican say the are for smaller gov't , less taxes,state rights, more freedom, and the free market, despite doing the exact opposite.

A Politicians job is to get the bill passed the way that the Lobbyist drafted it and finalizes it for them. The Republican say one thing and the Democrats say the opposite, but in the end the bill that the lobbyist wanted gets passed.

Obama, is already on his way



Comcast today said it supports President Obama's entire network neutrality proposal—except for that part about reclassifying broadband as a utility.
arstechnica.com...






I would have hoped that in the 128 credit hours I took at the University I would have seen that term "net neutrality


"net neutrality" is just a TERM " like "Patriot Act" what matters is the principles of the ""net neutrality". In the early days of the internet net neutrality PRINCIPLES were being utilized.

Your bottleneck back than was not the content provider being purposely slowed down by the ISP , it was your connection speed that you paid for that was your restriction.

However, doing a quick google search you can see it being discussed as far back as 2003.
papers.ssrn.com...
edit on 211130America/ChicagoThu, 13 Nov 2014 15:21:04 -0600000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Cont

This is why the consumer is likely going to get screwed by the ANTI NET NEUTRALITY LAWS THAT THE OLIGOPOLY controlled industries IS ASKING FOR regardless which party is in control.



So if you're wondering whether net neutrality will get a fair ruling from the agency that's supposed to protect it, don't bother. Because the judges used to be the executioners, and they will be again just as soon as their terms run out.

gizmodo.com...


edit on 091130America/ChicagoThu, 13 Nov 2014 15:09:25 -0600000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join