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.

 

You only need common sense & not technical knowledge , to see why NET Neutrality is good for the con

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
You only need common sense & not technical knowledge , to see why NET Neutrality is good for the consumer, business and the masses.


1. The most hated companies in America are consistently Att,Verizon, and Comcast (Telecom Oligopoly)


www.thewire.com...



Time Warner was at the bottom of the barrel with a score of 56/100. This is actually the lowest score of all time. Congrats on being the best of the worst, Time Warner. Comcast received a 57/100. Verizon received a 71, and AT&T a 65.



2. The most hated companies in America Att,Verizon, and Comcast (Telecom Oligopoly) are also the leading force behind UNDOING net neutrality.
They have also spent HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS to make sure they undo it throughout the years.

www.dailydot.com...


3. UNDOING Net Neutrality will put the consumers and Business at further mercy of the MOST HATED companies in America.




edit on 431130America/ChicagoThu, 13 Nov 2014 16:43:44 -0600up3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I don't get your point.

Are you being sarcastic with your title?

The most hated companies are public utilities, all of them. That is what Obama wants to do, make the internet a public utility, he said as much.

How about an internet run like a public utility, limited providers because the government decides who can provide and who can not. Prices will skyrocket, look at your water and electric and gas bill, rarely competitive pricing and over bloated bureaucracies running them.

Once net neutrality and making the internet a public utility happens, well, why not pass legislation to legally block certain sites for the good of the consumer? They will start with the most egregious porn sites, then the sites that steal your personal information, we'll all love that. However, once the law is written, there will be nothing to prevent whoever is in political power from shutting down sites of opponents or of those who expose corruption or those who say anything bad about the people in power. Do you want that?

That is what will happen, no doubt, positively will happen, absolutely will happen if Obama gets his way and by Executive Order forces net neutrality and making the internet a utility.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

Aww come on those companies are only trying to make a living. Don't you think they should have free reign to do what they want with their own company. I mean shouldn't they be able to decide how much they want to charge for bandwidth. Shouldn't they be able to decide whose websites load and whose don't? Afterall they may not like what people on ATS say about them shouldn't they be able to slow this site to a slow crawl. Damn you Obama.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I don't get your point.

Are you being sarcastic with your title?

The most hated companies are public utilities, all of them. That is what Obama wants to do, make the internet a public utility, he said as much.

How about an internet run like a public utility, limited providers because the government decides who can provide and who can not. Prices will skyrocket, look at your water and electric and gas bill, rarely competitive pricing and over bloated bureaucracies running them.

Once net neutrality and making the internet a public utility happens, well, why not pass legislation to legally block certain sites for the good of the consumer? They will start with the most egregious porn sites, then the sites that steal your personal information, we'll all love that. However, once the law is written, there will be nothing to prevent whoever is in political power from shutting down sites of opponents or of those who expose corruption or those who say anything bad about the people in power. Do you want that?

That is what will happen, no doubt, positively will happen, absolutely will happen if Obama gets his way and by Executive Order forces net neutrality and making the internet a utility.


But do we even know what the end result will be?

We can throw partisanship mud all damn day long, but where is the fine print?

Until regulations are put in place? This is just one more form of riling up the masses................

Divide and conquer, and by GOD by now, those of you who think you have the government figured the hell out should realize, we won't know what's in it until it is passed, are doing nothing more than contributing to the power these criminals have over us!

To blame the D's or R's at this point is Next Level BS!

EDIT: Let me add, due to the fact "Net Neutrality" has already become a "Partisan" debate? I can assure you, it will NOT benefit any of us little folk, but become the next divisionary topic for more finger pointing and arguments while the scum in DC who orchestrated it continue on with their destruction.......

Why can't they lay out the ground work before they get us at each other throats?
edit on 13-11-2014 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   

a reply to: interupt42
You only need common sense & not technical knowledge ,


well, thats it then,,, there is no other choice but to "pass the bill so we can find out whats in it"



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: interupt42

Aww come on those companies are only trying to make a living. Don't you think they should have free reign to do what they want with their own company. I mean shouldn't they be able to decide how much they want to charge for bandwidth. Shouldn't they be able to decide whose websites load and whose don't? Afterall they may not like what people on ATS say about them shouldn't they be able to slow this site to a slow crawl. Damn you Obama.



You will give them free reign as they WILL BE WRITING THE RULES in their favor!
www.abovetopsecret.com...




The whole purpose of "internet legislation" is to PREVENT you from having the choice because they will regulate ALL of the providers into the same system of THEIR choosing. And by "they" I mean the BIG political lobbyist. The Big Telcos have hired an army of lobbyist which include 18 former members of congress to lobby for their "NEW" Net Neutrality laws that "They" get to write. BAIT & SWITCH and the uninformed will buy into it hook, line, and sinker and "support" it because they are unaware of what has happened.


www.techdirt.com...



As much as we believe in the importance of a neutral network, we've pointed out over and over again that the last thing people should want is for specific net neutrality rules to be written by the government. For a while now, we've warned that once the lobbyists took over, people supporting net neutrality wouldn't like the results. And, of course, everything has been playing out following just that script. The telcos hired a ton of high-power lobbyists to cover net neutrality, including eighteen former members of Congress. And, despite arguing for years that net neutrality was evil, the telcos "miraculously" admitted last month they "might agree" to regulations... just as long as they got to write the details Given that, there was a lot of outrage last month for a series of secret meetings between telco/cable execs and the FCC. You would think that, given the public beating the FCC got over those meetings it would know better than to hold more. No such luck. Apparently they're right back at it. As important as the concept of a neutral network might be, what comes out of this sausage making process is going to favor the very companies net neutrality regulations are supposed to keep in line.

edit on 13-11-2014 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
That is what will happen, no doubt, positively will happen, absolutely will happen if Obama gets his way and by Executive Order forces net neutrality and making the internet a utility.


Do you understand that we currently have net neutrality? Comcast, et all are changing that to net preferential treatment. For a fee, a company can get preferential treatment on the Internet. Obama wants to keep it as it is.

Are you 100% sure you know what net neutrality is?



The most hated companies are public utilities, all of them.


Utility:

service provided by public utility: a service such as electricity, gas, or water that is provided by a public utility


Are you saying that our gas, water and electric companies are the most hated?



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw




limited providers because the government decides who can provide and who can not. Prices will skyrocket,


That is not true.

1. The GOVERNMENT does not decide anything and very unlikely even drafts bills and regulations. The gov't is a tool used by the LOBBYIST . Recall Pelosi infamous stupidity but honest comment " we need to pass the bill to understand what is in the bill" Congress are Robosigners for the Lobbyiest.

2. The lobbyist are the master mind that draft,consult and and provide the dream team of legal weasel counsel.

Funny that both gov't and lobbiest want the same thing , right. limited providers and the power who can provide and who can not. Hence the GOVT and the LOBBYIST don't want NET NEUTRALITY.

With that said the point of the thread is:
If you use COMMON SENSE you can conclude that NET NEUTRALITY IS A GOOD THING , not how to implement it.

One step at a time.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42


If you use COMMON SENSE you can conclude that NET NEUTRALITY IS A GOOD THING , not how to implement it.


That is the key and also why I am not jumping on the left versus right bandwagon!

I mean, come on, how many time has the government used a benevolent sounding name to implement something not so nice?



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AttitudeProblem




well, thats it then,,, there is no other choice but to "pass the bill so we can find out whats in it"


Who said anything about a BILL? the OP is about using common sense to conclude that NET neutrality is a good thing and nothing about its implementation.

Perhaps you "replied to the post to find out what its about" ? Sorry couldn't resist.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963




That is the key and also why I am not jumping on the left versus right bandwagon!


This really isn't a political Right versus left thing. This is a consumer versus lobbyist and gov't thing. Neither the gov't or the Lobbyist want net neutrality. The gov't and the lobbyist are in bed together despite their rhetoric.

gizmodo.com...



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.





They are TRYING to make it a political thing because when they do, people throw away common sense.

edit on 401130America/ChicagoThu, 13 Nov 2014 17:40:51 -0600000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
That is the key and also why I am not jumping on the left versus right bandwagon!


Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly support Net Neutrality. Republican numbers are even higher than Dems... It's definitely NOT a Right/Left thing.

Source



Indeed, Republicans were slightly more likely to support net neutrality than Democrats. Eighty-one percent of Democrats and 85 percent of Republicans in the survey said they opposed fast lanes.

edit on 11/13/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

after digging through some of the debate i am left with the thought that we already have the right laws from long ago that offer plenty of protection. We just need them to be enforced.

They are common carriers and laws exist that limit what they can legally do to content.
edit on 13-11-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

Yeah forget technology just use common sense to run a network with hundreds of million on it, sure....I guess you must work as a sys admin for the IRS and are you a "dude named Ben?"



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: bubbabuddha




Yeah forget technology just use common sense to run a network with hundreds of million on it, sure.

1. The topic is about whether net neutrality is a good thing using common sense.

2. The network and the internet with hundreds of millions on it, ran just fine while net neutrality was enforced up till this year.

As a matter of fact, as soon as they undid net neutrality the internet came to crawl for netflix and youtube users overnight using the same hardware and network nodes.

Netflix paid the extortion fees then again magically overnight using the same hardware and nodes as the day before traffic speed up to normal speeds.



edit on 021130America/ChicagoThu, 13 Nov 2014 18:02:10 -0600000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick




after digging through some of the debate i am left with the thought that we already have the right laws from long ago that offer plenty of protection. We just need them to be enforced.


We did have the right laws but just this year Verizon was successful in lobbying and got those laws revoked. We haven't felt the pain yet because despite being revoked they are suppose to ease into it over the years.



edit on 591130America/ChicagoThu, 13 Nov 2014 17:59:03 -0600up3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: deadeyedick








after digging through some of the debate i am left with the thought that we already have the right laws from long ago that offer plenty of protection. We just need them to be enforced.




We did have the right laws but just this year Verizon was successful in lobbying and got those laws revoked. We haven't felt the pain yet because despite being revoked they are suppose to ease into it over the years.





thanks for clearing that up. Is there an option to just undo the bs from last year? That would seem prudent and less of an argument.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

I wish their was a way to bring net neutrality to the way it was prior to this year since it was a proven success.

I'm just hoping that some of the political cheerleaders here see that net neutrality is and was a good thing for the internet .

Hopefully they will remove their political blinders and use common sense to realise that its not political issue but rather consumer versus big money issue.

Then maybe they will be open to finding ways to bring back net neutrality regardless what party is involved.

I still have my reservation that neither party will pass a true net neutrality law , changes or solutions despite what they say.


edit on 161130America/ChicagoThu, 13 Nov 2014 18:16:42 -0600up3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: seeker1963
That is the key and also why I am not jumping on the left versus right bandwagon!


Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly support Net Neutrality. Republican numbers are even higher than Dems... It's definitely NOT a Right/Left thing.

Source



Indeed, Republicans were slightly more likely to support net neutrality than Democrats. Eighty-one percent of Democrats and 85 percent of Republicans in the survey said they opposed fast lanes.


Either way BH, at this point I have been lied to so much, I really don't know what is truth and what is fiction.

The only reason I came out as it being a right/left issue is that it was Obama asking for it and then whack job Cruz going against it!

See what I am saying?

The divisionary tactics are already in play and no one really knows what the hell the end results *regulations* will be.

EDIT: Also, if the Democrat and Republicans both support it, then what is the issue? Partisan wise, if both parties support it, then what can the FCC do?

Someone is not telling the truth.
edit on 13-11-2014 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

one great step would be to steer away from the term net neutrality cause it is now a dirty term. I think just holding to the term common carrier and sticking to what mine and your post say then that would gain much ground in understanding that things just need to be put back how they were and that would settle all the fear of some new encompassing bill from the gov. cause any new bills will fail at this time due to you know what. As a matter of fact i guarentee that would work but few have faith in my words these days.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join