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: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: coop039

They may not be in a market with competition. We had lousy cable deals in our college town because there was effectively only one service provider.

As soon as we moved to a market with three competing providers ... things got much, much better.

But these regulations will start to throttle that competition which is what happens in a lot of other segments of the economy. Regulation is anti-competition. So the high cost of everything is what is coming along with lots of hidden taxes and fees in our bills making them more expensive.




posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: coop039

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?


That is the most frightening thing about this and make no mistake, that will happen.

Since this set of regulations merely sets the stage for those coming abuses, the debate is essentially about whether completely eradicating all regulations regarding infrastructure (my position) is better than introducing this vast new set of regulations which will effectively nationalize the regulatory management of the internet (presumably within the United States) but, wireless is in this too so it isn't just about broadband.

These issues are local and should be handled by local government (states and towns). The federal government should have almost no authority with respect to state laws unless there is a constitutional question regarding their legality.

The states and towns are just as corrupt as the federal government but, they do not have the captive audience that a nationalized regulatory complex would have and are therefore the lesser of the evils.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

I can't help but notice you completely misunderstand the republican side of it.

Obama wants the FCC to be able to regulate the internet. The reasoning behind it is that they want to prevent the big, mean, nasty corps from slowing your porn. The wording of the law however allows them to censor the web if they so choose. Republicans wanted a lot of wording stripped from the law, and finally gave up.

This is basically the patriot act for the internet, and I am sorry you don't see that.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Net Neutrality.


I'm going to try to explain this as simply as possible so everyone can grasp the concept of what is going on.

The internet was set up, very little rules, regulations and so on.

Picture of a bunch of roadways set up, all over the USA, by a few giant corporations, with people's monthly dues, and these few giants control everything. They control the roads, bridges, tunnels, stop lights, and anywhere traffic goes they control the flow, and say what the costs and dues are.

Now comes groups of small guys and their businesses. Small businesses that want to move traffic, across the roads, that the big guys set up.

The big guys say it's OK to travel, but then limit the amount of traffic, bully the little guys because there is no regulation, and fix the prices as well, so competition is really not competition. They tell the little guys that it's fair and that they are getting exactly what they are paying for, but who and what are actually setting up the prices and the ability to travel, and at what speeds.

??????

What "Net Neutrality" is supposed to establish is a more level playing field, and transparency, so the FCC can impose regulations on those big ogres at the troll bridges, so the little guys don't get fleeced.

Time will tell whether or not this type of regulation will work, but with nothing in place the little guys can't even take anything to a federal court to challenge the big guys.

I hope this helped.

Peace,

RT


edit on 26-2-2015 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Thank you, this is quite informative as to what the whole Net Neutrality deal is. Up until this point, I thought it was about regulating internet speeds, but now that you mention it, I do remember some people making a fuss about some Anti-Obama videos on youtube and Libs crying that it wasn't regulated. With how Emperor Obama's government is, it is not a stretch at all to imagine they will twist this to regulate speech on the internet.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Every time I read into the words "The regulation of Internet service by government" it brings images of more intruction into free speech and choices, when the government gets involved thing get worst and never for the better, roadblocks get build, bureaucracy rules and the so call political officials protecting the tax payer best interest means protecting their own filthy pockets.

The outcome will never be a good one.
edit on 26-2-2015 by marg6043 because: (darn spelling is going wild)

edit on 26-2-2015 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Well I'm certainly going to read through the whole thread to get an idea of the other point of view.

I just read an article today that said the reason we needed regulations was because there was no competition for high speed internet in a lot of areas.

Thus another alternative would have been to promote the competition rather than regulate.


edit on 26pmThu, 26 Feb 2015 14:14:54 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

"Regulation" is a word that have many uses specially when in the hands of the government.




posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: coop039

I am satisfied with charters internet speed and service. It is definitely fast even streaming on two devices at once and such. I must have gotten ripped off having to pay for installation. Other than the price I pay of $65 a month Charter is great they also seem to have good policies.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: chuck258
a reply to: ketsuko

Thank you, this is quite informative as to what the whole Net Neutrality deal is. Up until this point, I thought it was about regulating internet speeds, but now that you mention it, I do remember some people making a fuss about some Anti-Obama videos on youtube and Libs crying that it wasn't regulated. With how Emperor Obama's government is, it is not a stretch at all to imagine they will twist this to regulate speech on the internet.



Net Neutrality has nothing to do with internet speeds, atleast not on the consumer end. The fast and slow lanes don't change the speed you're allowed to purchase, instead they change how responsive the server is allowed to be. Data going to and from a certain server gets delayed based on if they purchased a fast or slow lane or if it's content the network owner doesn't want. Net Neutrality prevents this practice.

A non digital analogy would be with appliances, lets say General Electric goods are known to be inefficient while Samsung goods are considered fine. A world without neutrality would allow the electric company to deny electricity to your GE product you plugged in while your Samsung works fine.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
Every time I read into the words "The regulation of Internet service by government" it brings images of more intruction into free speech and choices, when the government gets involved thing get worst and never for the better, roadblocks get build, bureaucracy rules and the so call political officials protecting the tax payer best interest means protecting their own filthy pockets.

The outcome will never be a good one.


You are aware the internet was built entirely with government money, and just about all existing network upgrades over the past 30 years have again been due to government investment? The private sector did not build it.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
This is probably the best news I could've woken up to today.

Seriously, I'd take this over like...a birthday or something.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

You are aware the internet was built entirely with government money, and just about all existing network upgrades over the past 30 years have again been due to government investment? The private sector did not build it.


Technically the framework was setup by the government mainly for it's own purposes, but remember the government produces nothing, it only consumes, and it gets anything, and everything it has by sweat equity of the little guys.

The private sector being ATT, and other similar giants built, and used their copper cables in the beginning, and then expanded out to fiber optics, but again they all got their money from you and I.


edit on 26-2-2015 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth
Technically the framework was setup by the government mainly for it's own purposes, but remember the government produces nothing, it only consumes, and it gets anything, and everything it has by sweat equity of the little guys.

The private sector being ATT, and other similar giants built, and used their copper cables in the beginning, and then expanded out to fiber optics, but again they all got their money from you and I.


www.pbs.org...

I would suggest reading up on that.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake




I just read an article today that said the reason we needed regulations was because there was no competition for high speed internet in a lot of areas.


That is part of it.

It was actually Verizon and comcasts greed that made it necessary for the gov't to step in. In all fairness it was more Verizon. Comcast was even hesitant about going to court and risking the internet getting reclassified as it did today.


Had Verizon and Comcast not started to piss off its user base and extort an online market economy who were shackled by the telecom Oligopoly in the first place, the gov't wouldn't have had to step in.

Unfortunately for the telecom they shot themselves in the foot with their near sighted greed.

In summary:

Net neutrality legislations is a direct consequence of the telecom industry pushing their Machiavellian tactics to far, to a point that it caused consumers and another Oligopoly industry giant to revolt and bring in the gov't.

Had there been competition in the Telecom industry for consumers , gov't wouldn't have needed to step in. The people would have just gone to another provider.

However, thats the grub there are no other providers of fast internet for the vast majority.




Thus another alternative would have been to promote the competition rather than regulate.


Sounds great and nearly impossible to do. The telecom Oligopoly composed of ATT , Verizon, TWC, and Comcast have one of the largest lobbying groups. They have successfully made it nearly impossible via regulations and back end deals for competition to come into the game. Even Google is having issues with all their money and tech experience and money.

Also blame the Republicans for this, because they didn't take that stance. Instead they adamantly argued that net neutrality was the devil and bad for the consumers. Their efforts were concentrated on killing the one thing made the internet a success : net neutrality instead of offering solutions to provide net neutrality .

That left two scenarios available:

1. Reclassification [Dems]
or
2. Killing net neutrality [Reps]

So the decision comes down to the last couple republican campaign slogans " Vote for the lesser two evils"

In this case the lesser two evil was reclassification, because without net neutrality principles the internet was already destroyed.

Keep in mind I don't blame the republicans solely as the Democrats weren't innocent either.

The FCC and the Democrats claimed they were for net neutrality but the drafts they were providing were no different than what the republicans wanted.

It was not till another Oligopoly giant [Netflix,Google,Amazon,etc] that got involved and put fire on the FCC and the democrats that they actually started to provide real net neutrality principles on their solutions.


In reality the ideal solution:

All the telecom industry had to do to avoid gov;t regulations was to continue doing what they were doing since the inception of the internet until the verizon lawsuit. That was to maintain net neutrality principles.

They got greedy and broke one of the core premises of Machiavellian laws " Push them as far as you can , but not to the point they revolt" .

Well when they started to extort content providers [netflix,google,amazon,etc] they revolted and this is the consequence of that revolt.
edit on 10228America/ChicagoThu, 26 Feb 2015 16:10:09 -0600up2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
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.


Completely disagree. A politician who is only there for a couple years and then goes back to the private sector has no incentive to keep the voter base happy. He has every incentive to pass laws that are beneficial for his own private business in the future. A professional politician has to constantly operate under the threat of being voted out and doesn't have a conflict of interest in their personal business.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Yeah but the rules they posted months ago have all changed and of course they will not let anyone know what the new rules are or what has changed. That is what the spineless republicans were fighting for!!Typical Democrap. How the hell can you support something when it could say we will be breaking the law by even talking crap about the Government right now??? You do not know and they did not post the new rules for a reason, you would have to be pretty ignorant to think otherwise cause they have screwed us over ever chance they could.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
So it Starts. remember this day.
in the years to came we will see rule that will
take away freedome of spaech.
but very slowly.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

I under stand the lack of Competition but how many can afford to lay lines across the country. Verizon sold many areas of its copper phone network that don't have FIOS just to keep afloat when the economy went bust. Brighthouse in many areas of Florida are using decrepit coax lines that need to be replaced and if most Brighthouse customers knew how fragile they were and that they were not being replaced like they should many of them would go to FIOS in a heartbeat.

If Verizon would give their billing department an Enema they would be a great service to have BUT NOW we all get to pay taxes on the net as well, making it even more expensive. I could see them taxing us on the time we are online, the greedy sobs.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: raymundoko

Well I'm certainly going to read through the whole thread to get an idea of the other point of view.

I just read an article today that said the reason we needed regulations was because there was no competition for high speed internet in a lot of areas.

Thus another alternative would have been to promote the competition rather than regulate.



Please let us know what you think whenever you get a chance to review the thread.

I am waiting for the 332 page document to be released so I can see what is in the now enacted regulations. I have already made up my mind based on historical experience and principals of freedom of speech and trade but, the details are important.

I do appreciate that you have hosted this thread and have been very accommodating to a pretty anti 'network neutrality' crowd.

Cheers!

And yes, if the current administration pushed a set of regulations on schools called "don't kick babies in the head all the time", I would be against it.
edit on 26-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join