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: 6
30
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
What " grueling fight"? It seems that both parties leadership want it and only a few uncompromised holdouts in either partyoppose it. So another extremely unpopular piece of legislation gets shoved down the citizens throats and Obama gets to be the bad guy, again. And the republicans get to be called gutless. It's a well staged and rehearsed sham. I won't even say its well staged anymore, they're getting so emboldened now that they're being sloppy and obvious and don't even care what the people think.




posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I have nothing to say until I actually read the bill and from what I can tell it is not even available so I don't expect it to be positive. I've been watching the huge circle jerk on reddit and I've never seen more herd conformity in my life celebrating something that they have no idea what it says. I guess I'm just being nerdy wanting to see words and stuff like that.
edit on 26-2-2015 by ezwip because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge




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.


Not according to the documentation:




Require broadband providers to:

contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254
o The Order will not impose, suggest or authorize any new taxes or fees – there will be
no automatic Universal Service fees applied and the congressional moratorium on
Internet taxation applies to broadband.


www.fcc.gov...



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 05:24 AM
link   
The bottom line is this. When the government gets involved, it is ALWAYS because they want to tax and control something. And when the government gets involved...things go to hell. I don't care what it says, the fact that we WEREN'T PERMITTED to see it (and why the hell isn't that illegal?) and that Obama wanted it tells me that it sucks. You don't hide something from people that they will like.

Sure...they will leave it alone for quite a while, but then they will start imposing taxes, restrictions and YES...eventually CONTENT CENSORSHIP. I'm not talking about child porn...I'm talking about anti-THEM restrictions coupled with greately enhanced spying on us which they say they don't do. They will close small businesses, just like the current administration is doing in the real world because they want everyone relying upon the government for their lively-hood. That is their ultimate plan for control. A welfare country with them as the gatekeepers. THAT will be when they finally burn the Constitution in public instead of just spitting upon it in the oval office.

This is the beginning of the end of the internet as we know it. But it will take years for them to finish farking it out of existence.
edit on 2/27/2015 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 05:39 AM
link   
So how come with millions of people signing petitions against this did it still happen? Our voices are not heard? I am on page 4 of this thread but wanted to ask this question.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 05:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Why does the FEC need to help regulate your internet?


Yes and why is the bill said to be over 300 pages? Another clusterf**k.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 05:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: antar
So how come with millions of people signing petitions against this did it still happen? Our voices are not heard? I am on page 4 of this thread but wanted to ask this question.


No not heard. Republicans are in on it. I would rather vote a strait Marx ticket that vote for these political transvestites.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Any links to the official 300 pages? It would be great to actually read what this is.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   
By the way...here is what Boehner said about this. Kinda sums it up.

"Overzealous government bureaucrats should keep their hands off the Internet," House Speaker John Boehner said. "Today, three appointed by President Obama approved a secret plan to put the federal government in control of the Internet. The text of the proposal is being kept hidden from the American people and their elected representatives in Congress — and the FCC’s chairman has so far refused to testify about it."

People say we have to respect OUR president. This is NOT my president nor government.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: antar
Any links to the official 300 pages? It would be great to actually read what this is.


No links, it was not released to the public. I don't see how any citizen can support this. This will be a bait and switch to overreach their power. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Focusing on 'Net Neutrality' is what deceived the people, but what will be next?

Nothing was broken, they only found one company, i believe, Comcast, to actually violate 'net neutrality.'

The only fear mongering done was from it's supporters, saying 'net neutrality' is in jeopardy when it wasn't. There was no urgency for the government to get involved here, this was a power grab.

Just wait and see.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
HAHHHAHAHHAHAHHHAHAHAHHAHHAHHHHAHAHHHAHAH republicans INVENTED and LOVE net neutrality [for corporations], just as the democrats did. Its hilarious how they can play it as a two party fight! AHHHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA. same old same old.

[how many more random comments do I have to post before I can initiate a thread?]



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Ya, well maybe if Boehner could be trusted in this issue you might have a point but you can't trust anything that comes out of his leathery face. According to OpenSecrets.org Comcast is 3rd on the list for John Boehner's Top 20 Contributors to Campaign.

So it's not exactly a mystery why he's siding with the Telecoms now is it???

Like everyone in Washington they bought his loyalty, it's that simple.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: antar
So how come with millions of people signing petitions against this did it still happen? Our voices are not heard? I am on page 4 of this thread but wanted to ask this question.


Because what you just described isn't reality.

The FCC's previous plan was absolutely hated, it essentially gave Verizon and Comcast everything they asked for. The FCC released it to the public, got 4 million replies, and by their own admission over 90% of it was negative. On top of that the industry strongly opposed it. Listening to that Tim Wheeler came up with another proposal, which was overwhelmingly positive by the tech companies impacted by this. The only people against it were the ISP's and a handful of conservatives that mostly don't understand the issue in the first place (the irony of them being the "low information voter" here). In polling 84% of Republicans and 82% of Democrats support Net Neutrality, nearly 100% of non ISP tech companies support Net Neutrality, and nearly 100% of web content producers support it.

This is an example of peoples voices very clearly being heard, and the government listening.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 05:59 AM
link   
The great times of the internet is going to come to an end whether it's by government regulations or a select few corporations squeezing the life out of it for profit.

I don't really see anyone offering better solutions, just mainly calling each other stupid and trying to climb onto slightly higher "I told you so!" grounds. Probably exactly what they wanted everyone to do.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: antar
Any links to the official 300 pages? It would be great to actually read what this is.


There are 8 pages of regulations, the remaining 292 pages are replies to the millions of comments as required by law. The regulations can't be released until all the commissioners offer their opinions, which could take weeks.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Private sector rules the nation, it pays for the lobbyist parading the halls of capitol hill to screw the consumer, no laws are passed in the US that doesn't have private interest invested in them.

While the constitution assure you that it should not be a marriage of church and government it's nowhere in it that say private interest is off limits.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

As usual it goes like this, government increases taxes on those offering services, the companies offering the services pass the extra cost to the consumer.

The government looks good the services companies look bad.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043




As usual it goes like this, government increases taxes on those offering services, the companies offering the services pass the extra cost to the consumer.


First , I'm a libertarian and for small gov't for the most part , especially under our current gov't system where there is no seperation between lobbyist and gov't. Our gov't is solely a robosigner while the lobbyist dream team of lawyers draft the laws and legislation for them. With that said, I also don't block out common sense by locking myself to one ideology.

So I have no delusions on what gov't is or does. However, for NOW the reclassification of the internet was the better of the two cr@ppy options that we had.

The option the Republicans provided to remove net neutrality principles was the worst thing that you could have done to the internet. It would have literary killed the internet.

Anything that comes down the pipes with the reclassification will be peanuts compared to removing net neutrality.

Removing net neutrality is the most ATI American and most ANTI Republican thing that could be done to the internet.

First thing:
The internet is not a commodity ,gadget, or product that you go and buy at best buy, its a market place. As such, it should be treated and remain as a free market place , like it has been from its inception. That is done with net neutrality principles.

Your gatekeeper should not be able to determine what private company you decide to do business with on the internet. Your gatekeeper should not decide what you get to read , see, or your abuse your freedom of speech by removing your right to speak your mind on the internet on sited they don't like but are legal. That is very anti free market and very anti republican and anti AMERICAN.








The government looks good the services companies look bad.


I think comcast ,Att, and verizon have done a pretty good jobs themselves and their Oligopoly . The telecom industry is consistently among the most hated companies by its customers year after year. However, despite being hated by their customers they still manage to make billion dollar quarter profits.

How is that possible if you have competition. If I open a restaurant that a large portion of my customers hate, how long do you think I will be in business?

Gov't and Oligopolies are one in the same.

The only thing that made this different was that net neutrality was not a gov't thing nor did they wanted it. Despite what Obama , the demcrats, and the FCC said the drafts they were creating was anti net neutrality it was not till competition occurred at the Oligopoly level between the Telecom industry and the Online tech industry that gov't was forced to include real net neutrality clause.

Google, netflix, amazon , etc have a more in tune consumer business model. They want everyone to be on the internet, at the fastest speeds possible, at the lowest cost possible and they were the ones pushing for net neutrality.

On the other hand you had the most hated industry by its customer not wanting it along with the gov't.

For now it includes net neutrality principles and no taxation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this won't bite us in the butt down the road , but the minute they took net neutrality away they killed the internet anyway.

Perhaps the FCC reclassification is just buying us time but that is better than the death of the internet as of now.
edit on 04331America/ChicagoSun, 01 Mar 2015 09:04:17 -0600up3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

Competition is been paraded like is all fair for all, but we all know how competition works in the US, the big monopolies always eat up the wannabe monopolies before they get the chance to get big.

While we are sold the idea of competition we all know that is nothing but a lie.

This so call neutrality comes bundle up with other intents.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043




Competition is been paraded like is all fair for all, but we all know how competition works in the US, the big monopolies always eat up the wannabe monopolies before they get the chance to get big.


Very true, however their is one place that true competition does exist and that is at the Oligopoly level.
It is very uncommon and I don't recall the last time that two different Oligopolies went after each other. This just so happened to be the case.

The Online Tech Oligopoly industry [Google,netflix,amazon] just so happened to have a business model that directly conflicts with the Telecom[comcast,att,verizon] industry model.

The online tech oligopoly business models makes more money when everyone is connected to the internet with the fastest cheapest cost. This luckily directly benefits the consumer, not because they want to help us but because they make more money of us if we have cheap and fast internet.

The other Telecom Oligopoly has the exact opposite business model, they make money by hindering our speeds with money. They have no incentive like the Online tech Oligopoly to give us fast affordable internet.




This so call neutrality comes bundle up with other intents.


It always does, that is no different the telecom Oligopolies intents. Their intents was to be the gate keepers of a financial market. They wanted to determine who and what business you got to do business with and what information you had access to.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join