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: 6
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I have come to believe this entire battle is over bandwidth control and the ability to make money off that flow. PTB also understand just how important this information is content wise. They can nudge and push the content in certain ways we do not see yet.



Bottom line do you trust the people doing the regulating? I asked myself the same question and my answer was....NO.




posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SubTruth

Do you trust the corporations that buy the politicians that do the regulating anyway?



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

So, let's not trust either of them and not award them unknown authority.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: SubTruth

Do you trust the corporations that buy the politicians that do the regulating anyway?





No this is exactly what I was saying. We currently are not free we live under the rule of a corporate oligarchy. The people making the regulations and enforcing them are paid off and 100% corrupt.



Look around guys just because something sounds good does not mean it is. Look at Obama care and all of the promises put forward......Remember it was not a tax. Why did the insurance companies back it......Profit/control.
edit on 24-2-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
Even your fellows at ATS recognize that there hasn't been necessary expansion of infrastructure. This is due to excessive regulations which prevent investment by local monopolies in league with local government.


Those regulations are monopoly agreements the ISP's made the towns sign in exchange for service. They're a corporate created menace designed to keep out competition. The government has to step in and render them invalid if we're going to get competition.

That's not even what Net Neutrality does though.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I have come to believe this entire battle is over bandwidth control and the ability to make money off that flow. PTB also understand just how important this information is content wise. They can nudge and push the content in certain ways we do not see yet.



Bottom line do you trust the people doing the regulating? I asked myself the same question and my answer was....NO.


Do you trust monopolies to do the regulating?



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I have come to believe this entire battle is over bandwidth control and the ability to make money off that flow. PTB also understand just how important this information is content wise. They can nudge and push the content in certain ways we do not see yet.



Bottom line do you trust the people doing the regulating? I asked myself the same question and my answer was....NO.


Do you trust monopolies to do the regulating?



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan



Let me make myself clear.........We live under a corporate oligarchy. We are not free. The people doing the regulating are 100% corrupt and can not be trusted with anything.



No I do not trust the people making the regulations or the people enforcing them. This entire system is corrupt because we do not follow the constitution.
edit on 24-2-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: greencmp
Even your fellows at ATS recognize that there hasn't been necessary expansion of infrastructure. This is due to excessive regulations which prevent investment by local monopolies in league with local government.


Those regulations are monopoly agreements the ISP's made the towns sign in exchange for service. They're a corporate created menace designed to keep out competition. The government has to step in and render them invalid if we're going to get competition.

That's not even what Net Neutrality does though.


Thank you, this is the crux of what I am saying. They're a corporate/regulatory state created menace designed to keep out competition.

We want to encourage increased bandwidth through a multiplicity of options provided by as many competitors as possible.

This is not a federal issue, it is local. In most cases, I submit that removing cronyism from state regulatory agencies is only possible by removing most of their authority. That would help to grow our infrastructure.

Instead, this 'net neutrality' proposal completely ignores the issue (at least it appears to) and grabs for unprecedented control at the federal level which must ultimately result in the centralization and rationing of our infrastructure. The very thing which proponents claim to want to avoid.
edit on 24-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: SubTruth

Do you trust the corporations to do the right thing? I asked myself the same question, and my answer is no.


I have the benefit of direct conversations with many insiders through an online professional group of long-time Internet professionals. I've belonged to the group since 1999. This is a hot-topic within the group, and several people from within the industry have chimed in.

The backbone providers are beyond hyper-pissed at the off-ramp providers like Comcast, Cox, Verizon, etc. To date, they've only done about 20% of all the promised infrastructure improvements, most of which they received government grants -- your tax money -- to accomplish. Yet they're realizing massive profit margins on their broadband service.

They see common carrier reclassification as the only impetus that will get them off their asses to make all the improvements. Because they will be necessary to make profits with all packets being treated the same.

The primary reason they've been dragging their feet is to create the false perception that they need a tiered Internet. No backbone provider wants a tiered Internet, because then they will need to absorb the cost of accommodating the traffic jams the off-ramp providers create.

The off-ramp providers want to make content outside of their networks more expensive to deliver, so that in-network content (Time Warner's Netflix competitor, Verizon's Netflix competitor, Comcast's search, etc.) gain an advantage. I have that strategy direct from senior planner at one of the cable access providers. It's not about Netflix costing more to deliver than a blog about kittens in Idaho, it's about a business advantage for their content.

There's a lot of FUD out there. But the bottom line -- direct from those creating Net Neutrality disinfo and fighting against it -- is for a business advantage for their in-network content. It's not about bandwidth cost or lack of regulation, and never really was.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: SubTruth

You have one of two choices.


Government Intervention: Net Neutrality: use the same laws that force companies to treat all phone calls equality.


Corporate Control: No Net Neutrality: allow cable companies to control/restrict the flow of digital content.


It sucks, but this is the position we're in.






Ask yourself what the founding fathers would have to say if they lived today.




They would say...What the hell is twitter? As well as being pleasantly shocked with the advent of running water, electricity, the telephone, roadways and railroads et al.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: SubTruth
Ask yourself what the founding fathers would have to say if they lived today.


They would say...What the hell is twitter? As well as being pleasantly shocked with the advent of running water, electricity, the telephone, roadways and railroads et al.


I'm pretty sure the founding fathers wouldn't be able to get past the black sites to detain US citizens, and the fact that what passes for due process these days is chaining suspected criminals to a wall and beating them until they confess to a crime.

We would never get to the public works discussion.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
They would say...What the hell is twitter?

Oh you can be damn sure Ben Franklin would be all over twitter. Probably along with John Adams, just so he could troll Franklin on twitter.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

You forgot the guy who said 'I regret that I only have 144 characters to give to my country'.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Aleister

They're creative enough to get around that easily. We do all the time.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I enjoy your posts and truth be told agree with your points. But I think the divide might be in what we consider to be government vs private. You still see a line between the two and I do not.



To me the corporations are the government. This is systemic in nature and is why the country will eventually fail. Remember back in the 1980s.......Soda companies would have soda wars by dropping the price and trying to gain market share.......Today the companies have fixed the prices. This is happening in every industry.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5



Men like Jefferson,Adams,Franklin would be ashamed at what we have become. We live under a corporate oligarchy enforced by an ever expanding police state.



This is the truth prove me wrong. Corporations have infested the entire system including regulatory.
edit on 24-2-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
"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.


I think it is great that people are beginning to accuse small government proponents of labeling this as something like obamacare. At least we can all agree that obamacare was bad.

I guess we will have to wait a few years to hear the same about net neutrality.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: darkbake
"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.


I think it is great that people are beginning to accuse small government proponents of labeling this as something like obamacare. At least we can all agree that obamacare was bad.

I guess we will have to wait a few years to hear the same about net neutrality.






You hit the nail on the head..........How many times are we going to play the fool dear readers and members? At what point do we call a spade a spade?



They use fear,greed,anger,love as pivot points to push change. I know I sound like a broken record but this is the progressive agenda in full swing. Both parties are completely corrupted with progressive ideals. They push the rights of the masses over individual rights. And yes it is that simple.



Ask yourself why are so many big companies pushing for this when it is supposed to help out the little guys.........They are not stupid and they only care about one thing.....Profits/control.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: Indigo5
This is the truth prove me wrong. Corporations have infested the entire system including regulatory.


We could fix this problem if we made regulatory agencies a career path. As it currently stands we have a vehemently anti regulation side of government which seeks to eliminate their positions and their legislation. However, we still need some regulators. So what happens? We recruit knowledgeable people from the industry to act as regulators. They know what's going on and can keep things fair.

Sounds like a good system right?

Well, what happens when the presidency changes and the new president wants to appoint their own regulators? Those previous people are now out of a job, and their skill set forces them right back into the industry they were previously regulating. If those people weren't looking out for corporate interests while in their regulatory role do you think they'll have a job to close out their career?

If you want an example of this, Tim Wheeler the current head of the FCC was a former top lobbyist, and the current top lobbyists are the prior FCC chairmen.




top topics



 
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join