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.

 

Twitter Comes Out In Favor of FCC's Strict Net Neutrality Rules

page: 2
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:03 AM
link   
People that support Net Neutrality are simply put unAmerican. Net Neutrality would get in the way of making profit and nothing is more American than making profit. Profit is more important than people, profit is more important than loyalty to a nation it is more important than anything.

This has been your GOP message of the day.




posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

From Internet to Obamanet
BlackBerry and AT&T are already making moves that could exploit new ‘utility’ regulation

www.wsj.com...



Their supporters say the new rules had to be passed before anyone could read them.


Some people never learn.



The permissionless Internet, which allows anyone to introduce a website, app or device without government review, ends this week. On Thursday the three Democrats among the five commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission will vote to regulate the Internet under rules written for monopoly utilities.


The more than 300 pages of new regulations are secret,

The more than 300 pages of new regulations are secret, but Mr. Wheeler says they will subject the Internet to the key provisions of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, under which the FCC oversaw Ma Bell.


If you like your internet, you can keep your internet.
edit on 082828p://bTuesday2015 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
So wait, being in favor of net neutrality means you don't support intervention, right?



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
This whole net neutrality thing just infuriates me. As an IT employee, it's easy to see why people are trying to appeal to the "republican" base to stop this deal from going forward. They want the right to charge both dotcoms AND consumers for access to certain sites. Having it classed as a utility would prevent that from happening. You don't pay a "package" price for your electricity. Or water. You don't have to pay a premium to get access to "clean" water vs. "brown" water. You don't have to pay extra to use certain lightbulbs in your home.

That is what they want to do to your internet, America. I'm so glad I live in Japan. Once Net Neutrality is well and truly dead in the US, I'll be here, accessing ATS for free. Meanwhile you might have to pay a premium to get access to "Adult" websites like porn, conspiracy websites, 4chan, etc.

You folks enjoy that.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

From Internet to Obamanet
BlackBerry and AT&T are already making moves that could exploit new ‘utility’ regulation

www.wsj.com...



Their supporters say the new rules had to be passed before anyone could read them.


Some people never learn.



The permissionless Internet, which allows anyone to introduce a website, app or device without government review, ends this week. On Thursday the three Democrats among the five commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission will vote to regulate the Internet under rules written for monopoly utilities.


The more than 300 pages of new regulations are secret,

The more than 300 pages of new regulations are secret, but Mr. Wheeler says they will subject the Internet to the key provisions of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, under which the FCC oversaw Ma Bell.


If you like your internet, you can keep your internet.


Everything the government touches and controls becomes a cost bloated over regulated disaster. You don't like your provider or their prices? Call them and complain. Switch providers. Cancel service! Once half their customers cancel due to prices guess what will happen?

Don't like the 300 pages of new government laws? Too fricken bad because they will exist forever.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Yes, the Republicans sure don't like this, and are trying to twist the information to make it look like a bad decision for the average American when, in reality, the FCC ruling/decision gives some breathing room to an internet under attack.



The Republicans are using fear-mongering tactics that have no facts behind them, like "Obamacare for the internet" to confuse people into thinking that it is better for them to NOT support net neutrality. But the reality is, the individual is going to be better off if they DO support net neutrality. People are being played.

Why would Republicans have an advertising campaign based on trickery and smoke and mirrors if they had real, legitimate reasons to be against net neutrality? It is because they do have real, legitimate reasons - like making a lot of money off of suffering individuals and ruining the free internet - just not ones that they want us to know about.

Basically, the Republican voter will wake up one day to find out they screwed themselves out of the internet - and then will probably be manipulated into thinking it was the Democrat's fault. But they were MANIPULATED by LIES.

Start thinking critically - I didn't think that government regulations of the internet meant MORE freedom until I researched it and learned what the corporations wanted to do - which is downright evil and shifty. You might have to pay for each website you want to visit, like the diagram in the O.P... and websites like ATS will suffer... it is a major negative change for the internet.
edit on 24amTue, 24 Feb 2015 09:31:34 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Everything the government touches and controls becomes a cost bloated over regulated disaster.

These provisions are directly from the FCC Proposal summary


o Rate regulation: the Order makes clear that broadband providers shall not be subject to tariffs or other form of rate approval, unbundling, or other forms of utility regulation

o Universal Service Contributions: the Order DOES NOT require broadband providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254

o The Order will not impose, suggest or authorize any new taxes or fees – there will be no automatic Universal Service fees applied and the congressional moratorium on Internet taxation applies to broadband.



All the crap the republican and corporate operatives are saying about new fees and taxes are complete lies.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Find out which politician and/or corporation is trying to achieve this and vote em out/boycott their products.


Well, considering repealing Net Neutrality is now an official part of the Republican platform you can start with half of congress to vote out.


That's a big statement in and of itself and it should be an eye opener for anyone who currently supports republicans in Congress.

Furthermore, IMO voting republicans who are opposed to net neutrality out of Congress would be a great place to start!



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: wwe9112
So wait, being in favor of net neutrality means you don't support intervention, right?


Net Neutrality is the idea that all data is treated equally regardless of the source, destination, or contents.

How it's being applied in this particular battle is the ISP's want to make certain data more expensive for example your streaming video and your email will be charged at different rates. This also allows them to reduce quality of service to websites arbitrarily despite their service agreements. To use a road analogy, lets say between you and a business is a road. Currently to get to that business you leave your home (PC), drive to the business in your car (packet of data along the network), and then interact with that business (data hits the server), and then return home (data gets to your computer). The ISP's are currently the providers of that road and your access fees could be thought of as the taxes that pay for road upkeep. Without Net Neutrality the ISP's also get to charge for access to the road, create individual speed limits for different cars, and demand certain concessions from the business in exchange for a connection to the road.

It makes them the service provider and the middleman, essentially double dipping on their product.

Being for Net Neutrality means you don't want this to happen. Essentially it means you want the internet to work in the way that it already does.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

From Internet to Obamanet
BlackBerry and AT&T are already making moves that could exploit new ‘utility’ regulation

www.wsj.com...



Their supporters say the new rules had to be passed before anyone could read them.


Some people never learn.



The permissionless Internet, which allows anyone to introduce a website, app or device without government review, ends this week. On Thursday the three Democrats among the five commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission will vote to regulate the Internet under rules written for monopoly utilities.


The more than 300 pages of new regulations are secret,

The more than 300 pages of new regulations are secret, but Mr. Wheeler says they will subject the Internet to the key provisions of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, under which the FCC oversaw Ma Bell.


If you like your internet, you can keep your internet.


Everything the government touches and controls becomes a cost bloated over regulated disaster. You don't like your provider or their prices? Call them and complain. Switch providers. Cancel service! Once half their customers cancel due to prices guess what will happen?

Don't like the 300 pages of new government laws? Too fricken bad because they will exist forever.
That's all well and good. But like every single TV provider in America, they have colluded to bring you the "package deal" Television experience. The Internet Providers (Most of whom are also Television Providers), will most certainly do the same thing with Internet if given the chance. You can bet if there's revenue to generate, they will do it.

Allow me to put costs into perspective for you. For every digital HD channel you watch, you are using at minimum a total of 20 Mb/s. Every, single one. To clarify, say you're an average family with 2.5 kids. You have a TV (usually a multichannel DVR) in the living, most likely a multichannel DVR in your bedroom, and maybe one other either in a kids room or kitchen or something. So at minimum, that's 5 (2 DVRs with at least two channels simultaneously each and one extra) total TVs to pump HDTV to your home. So that's 100 Mb/s for an average family. For your internet connection, you require ONE connection of (on average) 50 Mb/s. The cost to a television provider to give you access to the internet is a fraction of the cost required to pump HDTV to your home. And you usually pay just as much if not more for your internet access.

And they want to capitalize on it further. And you, the consumer will pay for it.

You in America face a pretty nasty choice. I personally don't want the government meddling in the internet, but I also don't want to see the internet companies screwing you out of hard earned money just to access the same internet most of the free world already has access to. So, I choose the lesser of two evils. If the internet is classed as a utility, it will prevent internet providers for price gouging, package deals, and generally bending you over the table for the privilege of seeing the same internet I already get.
edit on 24-2-2015 by ScientificRailgun because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Everything the government touches and controls becomes a cost bloated over regulated disaster. You don't like your provider or their prices? Call them and complain. Switch providers. Cancel service! Once half their customers cancel due to prices guess what will happen?

Don't like the 300 pages of new government laws? Too fricken bad because they will exist forever.


The ISP's, particularly the backbones that run these policies are monopolies. You cannot switch providers and canceling service means going without. If you're a business owner do you really want to cancel your internet service and have no website, no email, no online orders, and so on?



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish
That's a big statement in and of itself and it should be an eye opener for anyone who currently supports republicans in Congress.

Furthermore, IMO voting republicans who are opposed to net neutrality out of Congress would be a great place to start!


It's part of their party platform, and most people aren't single issue voters, particularly over this issue. Republicans also happen to be popular with half of the country. Voting them out over this simply isn't realistic.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Flatfish
That's a big statement in and of itself and it should be an eye opener for anyone who currently supports republicans in Congress.

Furthermore, IMO voting republicans who are opposed to net neutrality out of Congress would be a great place to start!


It's part of their party platform, and most people aren't single issue voters, particularly over this issue. Republicans also happen to be popular with half of the country. Voting them out over this simply isn't realistic.


Not to worry, there's a literal smorgasbord of good reasons to vote them out other than this single issue.

People just need to quit being fooled into voting against their "own interest," by politicians who only vote for "special interest."

All I'm saying is that it's a good place to start.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Everything the government touches and controls becomes a cost bloated over regulated disaster.

These provisions are directly from the FCC Proposal summary


o Rate regulation: the Order makes clear that broadband providers shall not be subject to tariffs or other form of rate approval, unbundling, or other forms of utility regulation

o Universal Service Contributions: the Order DOES NOT require broadband providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254

o The Order will not impose, suggest or authorize any new taxes or fees – there will be no automatic Universal Service fees applied and the congressional moratorium on Internet taxation applies to broadband.



All the crap the republican and corporate operatives are saying about new fees and taxes are complete lies.


Just so long as your device remains "non-harmful", you should be good to go.

Obviously, anyone who demands to see the other 328 pages is just a mean racist silly person who loves corporations and steps on baby's necks for fun.
edit on 24-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777



If you like your internet, you can keep your internet.

Unless the Republicans get their way and you can say goodbye to your internet. Be prepared to be nickle and dimed to death. But hey that's the way of Capitalism huh?



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
Obviously, anyone who demands to see the other 328 pages is just a mean racist silly person who loves corporations and steps on baby's necks for fun.

That makes absolutely no sense. The FCC, like other similar agencies such as the SEC, FDA, etc., do not release internal proposals for public scrutiny until after the agencies have had their own votes. The FCC vote has not yet happened.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I say show us the bill, show congress the bill.

If they don't have to be transparent, why release a summary?
edit on 24-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
I say show us the bill, show congress the bill.

It's not a bill. It's a proposal.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: greencmp
I say show us the bill, show congress the bill.

It's not a bill. It's a proposal.


Show us the proposal, show congress the proposal.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

As I mentioned, that's not how it works. (sigh)



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join