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: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   

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'.

I understand that Verizon got some courtroom related relief from FCC regulation and that Netflix was asked by Comcast to grease its bits but, I don't see how that constitutes the eradication of a non-existent regulatory framework.

Good or bad, the claims being made that this new regulatory construct will 'restore' net neutrality are not supportable.
edit on 25-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   
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.


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

edit on 44228America/ChicagoWed, 25 Feb 2015 21:44:30 -0600000000p2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Big Corporations want huge volumes of regulations, because the BCs have full time regulation thinkers. Huge volumes of regulations start with one regulation at a time.


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.


The governemt has more unsatisfied customers than Comcast. UPS and FedEx are proof of that.

Since Comcast is the biggest, it makes sense that they have the most complaints. Or are you saying that the industry of

providing internet has more complaints than any other industry?


So I think we can both safely agree that comcast is part of a telecom Oligopoly that ensures no competition.



Only the governemnt can insure no competition. Competition is only one venture capitalist entreprenuer away otherwise.

Everyone wants to get the most they can for their time and effort. Corporations are made of people and so will try to get as much as they can by what ever means they can rationalize. The government will always serve the money better than the voter.


Hence one of the most if not most hated company in the world is successful. customers don't have a choice.


Everything has a cost. If Comcast, or any corporation, overcharges for its offerings, then other businesses will pop up
to get in on the high profits. Cartel or bad monopoly is only possible with government intervention, in this case giving
the cable companies local monopolies or in giving possession of the back bone to a private party.


2. Not fully true. Today government does nothing but robosign regulations drafted by the Oligopoly lobbyist dream team of lawyers.


The lobbyist lawyers drafted them, but the government enforces the regulations . All bad monopolies and cartels need government to keep out new businesses. Because, if the monopoly is charging more than the service is worth, new companies will start up to take advantage of the high profits.


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?


The government is bad because its power is always more accessable to the lobbyist and the full time government exploiter than it is to the normal living their life citizen.



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

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



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   

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.


Actually, this seems to support my point, I have been looking for some evidence of legislation or regulatory code but, none exists.

The supreme court ruled that "the FCC has no power to regulate "unless and until Congress confers power upon it."

Note that it is congress who can confer this otherwise non-existent power, not the FCC itself nor the executive branch.



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."


The former commissioner saw this for what it is and plainly said so on the record.



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."



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate




The lobbyist lawyers drafted them, but the government enforces the regulations


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 politician likes 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 and by their rules.

Before he was even allowed to be part of the candidates list 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.


Lawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, and director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University



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.


edit on 37228America/ChicagoWed, 25 Feb 2015 22:37:24 -0600up2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Yes, but the net neutrality principles themselves existed and was accepted until the court ruling.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   

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.



Yes, once the authority is awarded and the enforcement regimen is enacted, the next logical step is for the FEC, FTC, etc. to begin managing political, economic and other activity.

Having written a database for campaign finance compliance, I am aware of the extent to which the commission can intrude, upset and disorder the focus of any campaign with absolutely no recourse or judicial process.
edit on 25-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   
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.
edit on 13228America/ChicagoWed, 25 Feb 2015 22:13:45 -0600up2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Wow, there's a lot going on around the net about this. From agreement to more so the opposition of sites readying for the supposed death to the internet to other conservative leaning sites rallying that it needs to be stopped and more. Per caution: Why can't what is in the package be released? Well, maybe there can be "leak" of the the over 300 pages before tomorrow's vote.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Not exactly, The gov't is no longer in control . They blindly allowed themselves to be dependent on the lobbyist money over the years.


The G is the enforcer of the regs. Without the G enforcer, no cartel can keep out new companies. Big Corps like regulations, and that means that BCs like Big Gov.

Which is the reason that totalitarian socialism and OWG are the on the way.


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.


That is all true. Except for the mercy part. No politician should be a professional politician. The vote was meant as a veto, to keep G small. Being a congressman should be a watchman's task, not an creative task.

The Federal G was supposed to be an impartial, disinterested option for solving disputes between the states. The FG was not meant to be the Government over all. Why would every state government give up their sovereignty? Certainly they did not.

Harvard Law never says that.





a reply to: interupt42



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   

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.


There is no difference between the oligop and the gov. The oli is like the monster that eats the weapons shot at it.

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.

"Net Neutrality" is like no money down, but you will never pay it off.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate




All I've heard as a real argument is that the ISP will charge more for the same service.


Maybe you will hear this also. Without net neutrality

1. You will have a controlled fixed market where the gov't and the Telecom Oligopoly controls the winners and the loosers . Note the internet is not a commodity its an economy in itself.

2. Your freedom of speech will be violated. You create comcastsucks.org and they can legally silence your voice.

Or since you agree that the govt is the big corps.
Which lane do the think the websites like ATS which don't go with the main stream views will put on?

3. It will suppress technology and advancements.

Had comcast not been forced to apply net neutrality principles netflix could have likely not have ever been successful. Comcast would have purposely slowed access to netflix before netflix could take comcast subscribers.

facebook, napster, pandora, wikileaks, bittorent , etc probably wouldn't have gotten the traction if they werent put on a fast bandwidth.

4. They will bundled the internet, you want fast google and netflix you need to get the rapeme package.

5. Extortion: if Amazon wants to sell items comcast could force them to give them a percentage of their sales to ensure they continue to get the fast lane. Or they can create their own amazon and purposely sabotage amazon.



But actually, it is not the same service because more sites and content are available every microsecond, a plausible reason for increasing the price.


You may want to read up on how the internet works if you think adding content is a reason to raise prices. And you may want to refresh on what net neutrality is and what it effects.

It doesn't matter if a trillion web pages are created every mili second your bandwidth is not effected unless you try to access all those pages at the same time, but by then your CPU and memory will be long gone.


I can go on an on but I doubt it will really make any difference on your decision about net neutrality being a good thing nor does it appear that you really understand how it works anyways. Perhaps by choice?
edit on 47228America/ChicagoWed, 25 Feb 2015 23:47:01 -0600000000p2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   
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.

Are you aware that you would have 20 times more wealth under a the 19th century free market, sound money system?

Ever since the goberment has been making regulations, the economy has been paying for them. A car in the 1920s cost $250. Now it costs $25,000.

Your assertions are not self evident. Do you have any process by which to explain them?



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 02:02 AM
link   

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.


If that's the standard, the taxpayers built the hardware, and what little maintenance the ISP's have performed has again been taxpayer funded. By that standard we the people own the network, not the ISP's that sell us access to it.


Regulation is snake oil.


Certainly not all regulations are bad, but you have to admit that certain regulations are good. This proposal is a very light regulatory touch and it's a good thing. It's not perfect but under the circumstances it is incredible. Do you know what I've spent the past two days doing in school, at the behest of my instructors? It was learning where software companies in other nations are and what languages I would need to learn to work there because the field I'm in was that close to having to close up shop in the US had this not passed.

Know what I've been doing for the past week job wise? Figuring out what it would take to incorporate in Europe and market a product to them rather than Americans, because the market would be closed off.

That's probably a bit more extreme than some other companies but this FCC proposal had some pretty serious consequences if it didn't pass (I suppose there's still a chance it won't).


The regulations already on the books should be eliminated. That would be Net Neutrality.


I think I asked you this before because it was clear from your post that you had no idea. So I'll ask again. In your own words, what is Net Neutrality?



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate




If they charge too much, another company, consortium, corporation or business will build a competing system because of the profit to be made.


No, Not in a Oligopoly controlled industry.

The Telecom industry ranks among the top most hated industries year after year, but despite that customer hate them they continue to flourish. Why, because their is no competition.

The customer that hate them have NO choice but to be customers with them if they want fast internet.





Regulation is snake oil.


NO, regulation that prevents monopolies is not snake oil.

Snake oil is thinking that there is a free market and trying to apply free market concepts to a fixed market.





Ever since the goberment has been making regulations,


Again, gov't doesn't draft or create the laws they just sign them. The dream team of lawyers employed by the lobbyist are the ones that create .consult, and draft the laws.

Then the gov't HAS TO sign the lobbyist drafted laws because they need the lobbyist money, positive media coverage, and because they were already owned by the lobbyist when they were allowed to be part of the electable candidates lists in the first place.
,
That is why you got the “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it” , because they just sign what their money supplier tells them to.


edit on 43228America/ChicagoThu, 26 Feb 2015 08:43:19 -0600000000p2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

Maybe because the lobbyists are the ones writing the bills instead of the politicians, this is how come the politicians don't know what is going on... If no one in congress reads the laws they are passing, no wonder they get confused and say silly things.
edit on 26amThu, 26 Feb 2015 10:10:10 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   

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.


I am astounded that so many here are all for this. I just dont get it. Government regulation could easily turn to government control. And if that happens just think of all the stories that will never make the news. Think of websites that may be shut down.
We dont even know whats in this!
How will ATS looks 5 years from now if theres gov regulation?



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   

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.


I have NEVER had to pay charter for installation. EVER. And Ive had it off and on in St. Louis for years now. I have Directv for television service and I did NOT pay them to install it.

I have charter internet currently, I pay $50 a month for 100mg service. Its fast as hell, and plenty of bandwidth.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join