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.

 

F.C.C. Net Neutrality Rules Clear Hurdle as Republicans Concede to Obama

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

And we know how well that worked out last time.



Out-on-a-Limb-#2:

Otherwise, increases the possibility of an:

Article V Convention.


( i.e. a response to ... out-of-control )
.

edit on 25-2-2015 by FarleyWayne because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: FarleyWayne

originally posted by: greencmp

And we know how well that worked out last time.



Out-on-a-Limb-#2:

Otherwise, increases the possibility of a:

Article V Convention.


( i.e. a response to ... out-of-control )
.


I am hesitant to do that because we do not have trustworthy politicians.

A constitutional convention under these circumstances would be unacceptably dangerous.

State nullification and local deprecation of institutional power seem to be the most productive actions we can take at the moment.
edit on 25-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Just like videogames will be based on transhumanism in the future (plugging in to the matrix, basically), this is the slow takeover of the freedom of the free and open internet that we have had for so many years. It will not be long until fingerprint or other biometrics will be used to track people's whereabouts on the internet. I hope it's not coming for years, because I believe ATS will lose the majority of the good people on here like you and others that I like here.

Enjoy the freedom of the internet while you can friends, because 10 years from now people like us will likely look at the internet as a whole different thing. I'm sure that the internet will still be used by even me, but I'm sure that if they want to use biometrics to track people on the web that I would not visit websites like ATS or even ATS itself. While I don't always agree with the opinions expressed by ATS, NLBS, etc., it is still the best source of information that exists in the fog of disinfo that is prevalent in society today.

I was one of the people that signed the petition to the FCC to prevent these new net neutrality laws. The commissioner of the FCC even contacted me in reply, and said that my input was "extremely valuable to protecting our rights".

The bad thing is that even the controversial stuff is slipping its way through the system these days. I think that "they" will ultimately let this nasty bill slink its way into the lawbooks eventually...

I hope I'm wrong.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Oh don't Worry . They will quietly pass something when no one is looking . No one conceded anything.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
What a beautiful title, concede lol, they both work for the same people.

Cant wait for another bush in the white house.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: InFriNiTee
Just like videogames will be based on transhumanism in the future (plugging in to the matrix, basically), this is the slow takeover of the freedom of the free and open internet that we have had for so many years. It will not be long until fingerprint or other biometrics will be used to track people's whereabouts on the internet. I hope it's not coming for years, because I believe ATS will lose the majority of the good people on here like you and others that I like here.


No, this is actually the preservation of it. I am utterly amazed at how people are blinded by ideological viewpoints.

This FCC proposal, if adopted (which it looks like it will be now) is the best thing the government has done in 15 years.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Mega corporations are not our friends, just like big government. Sometimes the government needs to regulate them to keep them from screwing their customers. In this case, they would be destroying the internet, the best thing that has happened to humanity in a while.

I also would like to thank everyone on this thread who has provided a viewpoint opposing the O.P.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan



No, this is actually the preservation of it. I am utterly amazed at how people are blinded by ideological viewpoints.



This FCC proposal, if adopted (which it looks like it will be now) is the best thing the government has done in 15 years.


Just like Obamacare.

I remember the same arguments.




posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

And while Obamacare has it's flaws (many of them actually) it is still not only better than what it replaced, but better than all of the alternative options people came up with. Here's a simple challenge to you if you don't like Obamacare: Invent a better system.

We'll apply it to this FCC proposal as well. Make something better. Go ahead, I'm waiting.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

While it isn't what you are looking for, my solution would be to let people keep their money.

That would manifest itself as a stimulus of $5000- $25,000 annually for the average person.

Beat that.
edit on 25-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: beezzer

And while Obamacare has it's flaws (many of them actually) it is still not only better than what it replaced, but better than all of the alternative options people came up with. Here's a simple challenge to you if you don't like Obamacare: Invent a better system.

We'll apply it to this FCC proposal as well. Make something better. Go ahead, I'm waiting.


*yawn*

Been there, done that. Only I'm not in charge so what I offer will fall on deaf ears.

For the record, the Obamacare disaster came about because medical costs were too high.

So there were 2 wways to go about solving it.

Find a system that would meet the current high prices (Obamaxcare)

or

Look to ways to lower costs so that everyone could enjoy medical benefits even without insurance. There were many who came up with multiple options that would lower costs, but they were all tossed away.


_________________________________________________________


Now we have Obamanet. Or DOTGOV everywhere.

I'm no psychic. It might be awesome. Then again, unicorns might fly from my butt.

We'll just wait and see what new rules and policies and regulations await us.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Only thing anybody has to know, they'll screw it up royally. Everything the GOV touches turns to epic fails.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




And now instead of the radio Fairness Doctrine, we have Net Neutrality. Who could be opposed to either? They sound so similar and so ... fair. But they can move on from radio because it's the Internet where the real wilderness of free speech is. And that's what they are really worried about - controlling access to information.



Yes . a big part of all this is definitely controlling the information with out any doubt. However, I think you may be misunderstanding NET Neutrality ?

1. Net neutrality would make it impossible for them to control the information and that is why they worked so hard to undo it. The FCC and the Telecom industry had an open door policy. As a matter of fact our current FCC leader was the leader of the same lobbying group that he is suppose to regulate who doesn't wan't net neutrality and the last FCC leader is now the leader of the same telecom lobbying group. Coincidence I'm sure that by switching the top guys they were successful in undoing net neutrality.

2. Without Net Neutrality the gov't and corporations can control what you access by restricting bandwidth.

3. The FCC and Obama are not doing this because they wan't to , but rather luckily for the consumer the Online giants (Google,netflix,amazon,etc) have a business model that is in line with the best interest for the consumers. Those Online tech giants benefit by having all of us connected online at the cheapest rates possible at the fastest speed possible. Hence the tech Giants use their lobbying power to fight back when Verizon was succesful in undoing net neutrality this year.

4. The reason the FCC has to get involved is because Verizon and the other telecoms were successful in undoing net neutrality. Now the only way to get anything that resembles net neutrality is by having the FCC intervene.


edit on 22228America/ChicagoWed, 25 Feb 2015 18:22:14 -0600000000p2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Beach Bum
Only thing anybody has to know, they'll screw it up royally. Everything the GOV touches turns to epic fails.


1. They may also need to know that IT WAS the Gov't that UNDID Net neutrality this year on behalf of the Telecom corporations.

So using your logic we need to undo their intervention and bring back net neutrality. So I agree with you .

2. I love how people always blame the gov't but fail to realize that the gov't doesn't do anything but sign a paper. Let me ask you :

Who do you think is creating bills?
The lobbyist or the congressman?

Before you answer, do you recall the famous line "we must pass the bill to find out what is in it"

So if the laws and regulations are created by the lobbyist why is the gov't bad and the corporations that created those laws and regulations are so efficient and awesome?

.
The only reason net neutrality was originally passed was because the internet was was in the early years before it became so huge and an economy in itself.

The corporations and the gov't had no foresight to see how big the internet was nor how big it was going to be. SO net neutrality was passed as an oversight by them. Fast forward to more recent times and they finally get the impact of the internet and all the sudden they wanted control. So what do they do , they undo the consumer friendly net neutrality law.
edit on 47228America/ChicagoWed, 25 Feb 2015 18:47:29 -0600000000p2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

Thanks, interupt. Like I was saying, there seems to be some confusion on the conservative side about what net neutrality is. Net neutrality is keeping the internet the way it is now. Some corporations want to change it for the worse in order to make more of a profit.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

OK, so you impose rules on it, and it WON'T change?

How does that work exactly?

The answer is that it doesn't. If you impose rules on it, it, by necessity, has to change to work in accordance with the new rules -- all 300 pages of them.

Also, if you want it to keep growing and innovating and changing, you don't want it to stay the way it is which is what these rules to do -- keep it static. You just admitted that. And, I thought we were imposing rules on it because no one was happy with how it is now ... so if the rules aren't changing anything, then what good are they? They're just going to lock in current conditions no one is happy with.

edit on 25-2-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake




there seems to be some confusion on the conservative side about what net neutrality is


The confusion is by design and they are spending heavy in making sure that people don't realize what net neutrality really is. However, don't think for a minute that the Democrats in office want this. Obama himself is buddy buddy with the Devil himself the comcast CEO that does not want net neutrality.

So they (Democrats) may be saying they want net neutrality they really don't , neither party wants it because the Telecom industry is a big lobbyist to both.

Luckily for the consumers the Giant Online retailers and business (ie: Google,Amazon,Netflix,ATS of course
) need net neutrality to Survive, so they lobbied heavily to make those Democrats pause and they also provided input for the bills to ensure net neutrality.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: darkbake




there seems to be some confusion on the conservative side about what net neutrality is


The confusion is by design and they are spending heavy in making sure that people don't realize what net neutrality really is. However, don't think for a minute that the Democrats in office want this. Obama himself is buddy buddy with the Devil himself the comcast CEO that does not want net neutrality.

So they (Democrats) may be saying they want net neutrality they really don't , neither party wants it because the Telecom industry is a big lobbyist to both.

Luckily for the consumers the Giant Online retailers and business (ie: Google,Amazon,Netflix,ATS of course
) need net neutrality to Survive, so they lobbied heavily to make those Democrats pause and they also provided input for the bills to ensure net neutrality.






Now I'm even more confused. None of the politicians want it, and all their big business buddies are telling them not to do it, but big retail has somehow forced them to do it anyhow?

So it's all evil BIg Businesses doing it? And the Democrats are all innocent even though they are doing it?


How much mental contortion do you have to do before you actually start to believe this?



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Oh good ,the government is here to help...







 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join