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.

 

Net Neutrality Fear Mongering: "You'll Pay More Taxes" - Not Substantiated

page: 1
42
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+17 more 
posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Get ready for the flood of lies, distortions, and fear-mongering from the corporate-funded politicians and media outlets with a vested stake in killing Net Neutrality. The latest comes from the supposedly centrist "Progressive Policy Institute," which is a hawkish think tank under the also self-style centrist "Third Way Foundation," which gets its funding from Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health Insurance Corporation, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, Raytheon, and AT&T among others. The PPI has published a report that Outdated Regulations Will Make Consumers Pay More for Broadband. Which has been pounced upon by the ultra-conservative Grover G. Norquist in an opinion piece for Reuters: If the Internet becomes a public utility, you’ll pay more. Here’s why.

First, everyone needs to be clear what's at stake here.

With Net Neutrality, which is opposed by most corporations, especially media conglomerates, and politicians funded by media conglomerates, the end result is that all Internet traffic is treated equally. Internet Service Providers must ensure that data coming from CNN, NetFlix, and other large providers arrives at the same speed as long-tail sites like ATS and Infowars.

With out Net Neutrality, under the FCC's Hybrid Plan, which is highly favored by most corporations, media conglomerates, and politicians funded by media conglomerates, the end result is a "fast lane" reserved for CNN, NetFlix, and other large providers willing to pay the entry fee, and long-tails sites like ATS and InfoWars relegated to an slow lane with no restrictions on how slow providers can make the slow lane. Indeed, the Hybrid provisions allow for nearly shutting down the "slow lane" if the "fast lane" occupies network resources.

The end result of the Hybrid Solution, highly desired by the media conglomerates, are Internet access packages similar to cable TV bundling. With the provision that if NetFlix is occupying 80% of network bandwidth on the Friday night the new House of Cards season is released, they can effectively shut off the slow lane.

The fear mongering by Grover G. Norquist and his partner in distortion, Patrick Gleason, has no basis in actual proposals being discussed. The idea that there could be new taxes associated with broadband access, once classified as a common carrier (Net Neutrality), is purely speculative on the part of hyperbolizing pundits looking to shift public opinion.


For a great deal more information on the reality of Net Neutrality, and other fights for your online rights, go to FightForTheFuture.org
edit on 6-1-2015 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Alright I am a tad confused here.

Netlfix is a 100 % streaming site unlike other sites. Like ATS, CNN etc.

Their business, and business like them depend on bandwidth. Intentionally throttle them down doesn't make much sense to me.

They would go out of business rather quickly with a constant 'buffering' circle constantly on tv screens, and pc monitors.

Now with 4k coming down the pike. Bandwidth will be even more important.

In my opinion net neutrality sounds more of the same where 'everyone gets a trophy for showing up' because like it or not there are no two people, or business that use bandwidth the same.

Video needs the fast lane, and other content.

Little old ladies checking emails once a month not so much.

'Fairness' is a subjective term because it assumes everyone uses the internet the same way.

We don't.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96
At the moment speed of internet is largely determined by your speed of connection so high volume users can choose to have higher speed access. Under the proposals web providers will be able to choose what sites run fast or not with you having no choice in the matter.


edit on 6-1-2015 by ScepticScot because: hit post to early



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You're using the reflexive corporatist/conservative distortion on this issue. Which is quickly becoming a global issue.

Netflix already pays a premium "on ramp" fee (as does ATS) that trickles down, through peering agreements, to service providers like Comcast and Time Warner. So in effect, the providers are already being paid more to support high-demand content like NetFlix on their networks.

Comcast already arbitrarily extorted NetFlx by slowing down their content to end users until NetFlix paid even more.

Net Neutrality is no such thing as "everyone gets a trophy," that's an absurd and false analogy.

All content needs the fast lane. Period.


And yes, not everyone uses the Internet the same. That's why access providers have tiered packages for speed.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord




You're using the reflexive corporatist/conservative distortion on this issue. Which is quickly becoming a global issue.


No.

I seen what 'fair share, fair play' bull snip did to satellite broadband with that snip the 'fair access policy'.

Caps on usage, getting charged for going over, and everyone using it gets ridiculously slow speeds.

People should be weary of 'net neutrality' because it will be anything but.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I dont see why they cant have it both ways. Why do they have to screw some places over just so netflix will work just like it does already?

It is not as if bandwidth and internets are a finite commodity, they are making more all the time.

Businesses like netflix should have to help pay for a percentage of the infrastructure they are making serious money off of if they are hogging too much bandwidt.

Imho thats how I see it.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
The latest comes from the supposedly centrist "Progressive Policy Institute," which is a hawkish think tank under the also self-style centrist "Third Way Foundation," which gets its funding from Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health Insurance Corporation, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, Raytheon, and AT&T among others.


It is a war between Big Government Crony Capitalists like the above vs Free Market Small Business Capitalists that do not have the money to buy politicians.
Same old crap.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: infinityorder
I dont see why they cant have it both ways. Why do they have to screw some places over just so netflix will work just like it does already?

It's not just NetFlix, I and others use them as an example of the kind of content providers that would have to pay higher fees to be in the fast lane.

Part of the problem is also the attempt to either stifle competition, or get the competition to pay more. Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, and other providers have all created their own content streaming services that compete with NetFlix.



It is not as if bandwidth and internets are a finite commodity, they are making more all the time.

The major broadband providers have been exceptionally slow in making the promised upgrades to their networks.



Businesses like netflix should have to help pay for a percentage of the infrastructure they are making serious money off of if they are hogging too much bandwidt.

They already do.

All online content providers pay an "on ramp" fee to deliver their content to the backbone. ATS pays well into four-figures a month for our premium-level on ramp fee, you can bet NetFlix pays hundreds of thousands of dollars a month. A fair portion of that on ramp fee is shared among peering agreements between backbone providers and service providers. So in the current system, Comcast is already getting compensated for the additional NetFlix content streaming to customers.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I get the feeling this will lead to customers paying per bandwidth, something we do NOT need as we pay enough for internet as it is! Also fair to note I haven't researched it entirely just read a little here and there coupled with a gut feeling.
If it ain't broke - don't fix it!



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96


People should be weary of 'net neutrality' because it will be anything but.


It is a No Brainer to me on which side to pick when you have the Big Government Crony Capitalists against Net Neutrality on one side.


Since they pretty much OWN the government, I suspect they will get what they want.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
People should be weary of 'net neutrality' because it will be anything but.

You are exceptionally and overwhelmingly wrong on this issue.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: neo96
People should be weary of 'net neutrality' because it will be anything but.

You are exceptionally and overwhelmingly wrong on this issue.


I don't think so.

Every time government gets involved to 'fix' something they eff it up more than it already than it was.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I don't know , but it seems to me that anytime you get the government more involved people wind up paying more.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
I don't know , but it seems to me that anytime you get the government more involved people wind up paying more.


Sure was the case for the 'Affordable' Care Act wasn't it.

Same deal with housing.

Same deal with savings, and loans.

Same deal with government 'oversight' of the financial sector that led to the 'bailouts'.

Same deal with our new trillion dollar student loan debt.

All that was about 'fairness'.
edit on 6-1-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
I don't know , but it seems to me that anytime you get the government more involved people wind up paying more.


That's the rub. The fear-mongerers have kept pumping the idea that Net Neutrality requires more government regulation and laws. It's an outright lie to fool you.

The Net Neutrality proposals involve classifying broadband as a common carrier under existing FCC/Federal laws. In fact, much of Verizon's FIOS fibre optic access is right now classified as a common carrier because they used the rights of way to install the lines. Verizon desperately wants to undo that.


It's the FCC's Hybrid Approach that would require a mountain of new laws and regulations.


Achieving Net Neutrality through common carrier classification requires no new laws or regulations.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Sure was the case for the 'Affordable' Care Act wasn't it.

That was all the result of ill-conceived new laws/regulations with significant corporate input.

There will be (it's already being discussed) significant corporate input in the crafting of the FCC's Hybrid Approach.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

I don't think so.

Every time government gets involved to 'fix' something they eff it up more than it already than it was.



You have it backwards.
If the Net Neutrality fails, the Crony Capitalists will be using the government to interfere by creating more rules and regulations to tailor the market to their benefit at everyone else's expense.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord




That was all the result of ill-conceived new laws/regulations with significant corporate input.


That is the standard operating procedure for those shills on capitol hill.

I have zero faith, and credit in them.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: ketsuko
I don't know , but it seems to me that anytime you get the government more involved people wind up paying more.


Sure was the case for the 'Affordable' Care Act wasn't it.


I agree, The Crony Capitalists wanted the government to get involved.
www.opensecrets.org...

Lobbyists
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $2,983,826,387
Insurance $2,074,087,821



Same deal with government 'oversight' of the financial sector that led to the 'bailouts

I agree, The Crony Capitalists wanted the government to get involved.

Lobbyists
Finance/Insur/RealEst $6,235,064,105


Kill Net Neutrality

I agree, The Crony Capitalists wanted the government to get involved.


"Third Way Foundation," which gets its funding from Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health Insurance Corporation, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, Raytheon, and AT&T among others.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: neo96

I don't think so.

Every time government gets involved to 'fix' something they eff it up more than it already than it was.



You have it backwards.
If the Net Neutrality fails, the Crony Capitalists will be using the government to interfere by creating more rules and regulations to tailor the market to their benefit at everyone else's expense.



Think that started with net neutrailty ?

Crony capitalism has been a mainstay in America since Franklin held a monopoly on printing.

A sweet no bid government contract if you will.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join