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.
originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Semicollegiate
A big corporation only has power as long as customers buy its products, so the big corps are almost never really screwing you,
Not true at all,
Comcast is a BIG SUCCESSFUL corporation and makes billions per quarter. The problem is that Comcast while is very successful it also has the MOST dissatisfied customer of any industry year after year.
So I think we can both safely agree that comcast is part of a telecom Oligopoly that ensures no competition. Hence one of the most if not most hated company in the world, is wildly successful.
customers don't have a choice.
unless the government makes new competition impossible.
2. Not fully true.
Today government does nothing but robosign regulations drafted by the Oligopoly lobbyist dream team of lawyers.
Like I stated in another post:
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?
You said
he government only wants more government. The government is not your friend.
Agreed, but its not solely the gov't that wants more government. The Oligopoly lobbyists want more government because the more gov;t the more control they also have.
That is why the govt AND the telecom lobbyist undid net neutrality. Net neutrality put to much power on the hands of the people instead of the gov;t or the established Oligopolies.
Net neutrality only passed in the earlier days of the internet when gov't and Oligopolies had no foresight of what the internet was. Once they figured it out they undid it
I still don't think there ever was 'net neutrality'.
Federal regulators voted 3-2 on Friday to declare that Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent traffic last year was unlawful, marking the first time that any U.S. broadband provider has ever been found to violate Net neutrality rules.
The Federal Communications Commission handed Comcast a cease-and-desist order and required the company to disclose to subscribers in the future how it plans to manage traffic
Not true at all, Comcast is a BIG SUCCESSFUL corporation and makes billions per quarter. The problem is that
Comcast while is very successful has the MOST dissatisfied customer of any industry year after year.
So I think we can both safely agree that comcast is part of a telecom Oligopoly that ensures no competition.
Hence one of the most if not most hated company in the world is successful. customers don't have a choice.
2. Not fully true. Today government does nothing but robosign regulations drafted by the Oligopoly lobbyist dream team of lawyers.
Like I stated in another post:
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?
originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: greencmp
I still don't think there ever was 'net neutrality'.
article from 2008
www.cnet.com...
Federal regulators voted 3-2 on Friday to declare that Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent traffic last year was unlawful, marking the first time that any U.S. broadband provider has ever been found to violate Net neutrality rules.
It also is likely to be challenged in court . In 2006, Congress rejected five different bills that would have handed the FCC the power to police Net neutrality violations; the FCC has acknowledged that its own Net neutrality principles "are not enforceable"; the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the FCC has no power to regulate "unless and until Congress confers power upon it."
Commissioner calls ruling unlawful
In an unusually pointed dissent, Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Republican, said the FCC's ruling was unlawful and the lack of legal authority "is sure to doom this order on appeal." McDowell said the order would invite far more extensive FCC regulation of the Internet, with the rules varying by which political party controls the White House: "The ground rules will change based on election results."
The lobbyist lawyers drafted them, but the government enforces the regulations
When Lessig contemplates this impasse, he sees political polarization as merely a symptom of a much deeper sickness: Congress has been “corrupted” by its members’ dependence on money from lobbyists—and from the special interests hiring those lobbyists—to fund their reelection campaigns.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: greencmp
It is possible that the "Net Neutrality" only needs to work through the next election, or some future election.
A rule like, all web sites must be approved for fairness,
or only an equal number of websites for every candidate on the printed ballot are allowed,
or all candidate websites must have equal traffic. All web sites will be allowed only the traffic of the least accessed.
A rule like, all web sites must be approved for fairness,
Not exactly, The gov't is no longer in control . They blindly allowed themselves to be dependent on the lobbyist money over the years.
Politicians are at the mercy of the lobbyist not the other way around unlike the past.
It took Obama half a billion dollars to run for office. You think a politicians likes to have to raise that much money to get elected. The lobbyist allowed for that to happen because now the politicians need their money more than ever.
Obama has to play their games because before he was even allowed to be part of the candidates he was already bought and paid for.
You can't get elected without
1. Big lobbyist money
2. Big lobbyist controlled MSM
3. Big lobbyist Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)
4. Big lobbyist controlled GOP and DNC.
originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Semicollegiate
A rule like, all web sites must be approved for fairness,
What ever they do, it couldn't make the internet any worse then a Oligopoly censored internet.
Or any worse than a world economy controlled by a hated Oligopoly.
Regardless, its really not up to any one of us. Its a battle between the Oligopolies we are sure to get collateral damage when the dust settle no matter what.
Would I prefer that gov't stay out of it, heck yeah but not under a oligopoly controlled telecom industry.
All I've heard as a real argument is that the ISP will charge more for the same service.
But actually, it is not the same service because more sites and content are available every microsecond, a plausible reason for increasing the price.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Whoever builds and maintains the hardware owns the internet. They sell services to try to turn a profit from the investment of building and maintaining the internet. If they charge too much, another company, consortium, corporation or business will build a competing system because of the profit to be made.
Regulation is snake oil.
The regulations already on the books should be eliminated. That would be Net Neutrality.
If they charge too much, another company, consortium, corporation or business will build a competing system because of the profit to be made.
Regulation is snake oil.
Ever since the goberment has been making regulations,
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: IntroduceALittleIrony
I wonder what you all think about George Soros funding this.
Link
But aside from all that I find it humorous that ATS, a site and community devoted to truth and yada yada yada, is on board with this (though some here are not obviously). You want the government, the same government you hate for spying, for the police state, and a host of other reasons, to now regulate your internet. You distrust the government when it comes to everything under the sun, but this just escapes that distrust?
its almost as if some people don't really care that we cant even read this thing until its passed, so long as it sticks it to Comcast/TW. And that attitude is more destructive in the long run than what the telecom giants are doing now.
I think many of us are truly astonished, I can't explain it.
originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: FlySolo
I was supposed to pay $30 / month with Charter, but after a year that went up to $65 a month... their special deal wore off, I guess. There was also a nearly $200 installation fee. Barely affordable for me.