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: 7
30
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
US President Barack Obama on Sunday 16 February 2014 signed legislation to raise the upper limit of public debt. Thus, the problem of public debt, which threatens to default the United States, postponed until March 15, 2015
In the Internet found an interesting video on the subject:the nuclear threat of the U.S.




posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

Another issue that I see with the neutrality is that is only a way to push an agenda, while is been proposed as a mean to ensure equality and competition you have to understand that one thing is for the federal government to talk about it and another to enforce it.

Here in the my neck of the woods we have one cable provider, around here small cities and towns have one particular provider that had manage to get in bed with the small town politicians to keep away other competitors, this means that in my neck of the woods we are dominated by one company monopoly.

When this company I am talking about decided to raise their prices substantially last year, we all complained, asking for more competition, to find out that it didn't matter, the truth came out, the town has a contract signed many years ago that for certain amount of years no other companies can compete.

So as you see this is a local state problem also.




edit on 1-3-2015 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
The future of the net is going to be worse that what it is now. The government is already essentially run by corporate lobbyists. If people are so worried about corporate monopolies, then why aren't they worried about a government monopoly of the internet? It's just going to turn into any other public utility company. Just as Con Ed and the other electric company, it will be Verizon, Time Warner or Comcast and any other internet provider. That's what it will turn into. More taxes more, regulations. This is going to pave the way for censorship and stricter regulations. Remember the Fairness Doctrine?




posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: NYCUltra
The future of the net is going to be worse that what it is now. The government is already essentially run by corporate lobbyists. If people are so worried about corporate monopolies, then why aren't they worried about a government monopoly of the internet? It's just going to turn into any other public utility company. Just as Con Ed and the other electric company, it will be Verizon, Time Warner or Comcast and any other internet provider. That's what it will turn into. More taxes more, regulations. This is going to pave the way for censorship and stricter regulations. Remember the Fairness Doctrine?



Maybe it will, but nothing in these rules paves the way for that.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Aazadan

Maybe it will, but nothing in these rules paves the way for that.


That we know of yet.





Considering the bill specifically calls out that the internet will remain untaxed I would say we're in good shape.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

When it comes to government history and actions speak for itself, regulations means regulations, means that the door for a government control of the internet will be open.

Just like we are now paying by force or be penalized for Obama care and forced commerce within US citizens fueled by private interest backed by the government.

Yes unconstitutional but hell the Federal government doesn't believe in the constitution anymore we are ruled by executive decisions.


edit on 2-3-2015 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: NYCUltra




The future of the net is going to be worse that what it is now


Without a doubt, it was under attack from Corporate Oligopoly and Gov't since the moment they figured out it was a market place, global economy, freedom of speech, and source of uncontrolled information.

However, The NOW would have happened NOW had the ISP and the GOV't gotten their way to remove Net neutrality.

The only reason it was not removed was because the the ONLINE TECH OLIGOPOLY NEEDS net neutrality to survive, so they spend millions to hold the Obomo and the democrats to the fire.

Neither the gov't or the Telecom industry want net neutrality despite what they say if you look at the earlier regulations.

We have just delayed the unavoidable and perhaps for as long as the Online tech industry is DEPENDABLE on it to survive. Perhaps it will buy us enough time to dependably deploy mesh networks.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

Oligopoly / monopolies the reason why it was needed for the FCC to get involved.

All the tech industries would have been at the mercy of comcast, verizon, and Att .

Comcast, verizon, and Att could have demanded Amazon pay them a percentage of their business or they would bring traffic to a crawl without net neutrality.

What people fail to understand is the internet is not a commodity its an economy/ market place ,and no one should be able to control or fix the market and decide the winners and the looser.

Sure the FCC will try to later F with the regulations down the road , but for now the regulations specifies Net Neutrality. In addition and fortunately you have an ONLINE TECH OLIGOPOLY [google,amazon,netflix,etc] that is dependent on net neutrality ,who has no choice but to fight what ever future B$ the gov't tries to do to the regulations.They will spend the millions because they won't survive without it.

Also this change in regulation might also open the door for Google Fiber to go nationwide, prior to that like you said the ISP built a monopoly by bribing local and state gov't for sole rights. With this they won[t be able to prevent Google from getting access to the POle and places to run cable.

edit on 14331America/ChicagoMon, 02 Mar 2015 10:14:09 -0600up3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

Be afraid of companies like Google, be very afraid, they should never be allowed to rule the net, I make sure that I never will use Google and their crap in the any way or faction.

You are right the internet has become a market place, for convenience and has been exploited as such, but that wasn't the intent of the internet to begin with, it was about sharing of information, now the capitalism has take over.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043




Be afraid of companies like Google, be very afraid, they should never be allowed to rule the net,


Absolutely just like any other BIG Corp, because they have unrealistic financial expectations of continuing growing and exceeding last years profits. This makes them move the grey line inches at a time for survival purposes, and they have the money to create the regulations.

However, Google isn't doing anything nice for us because they care for us, they are doing it for themselves but it just so happens to benefit us.

Google makes more money the more devices are online at the fastest speeds possible at the cheapest cost possible and they want everyone to be online without being controlled by a gatekeeper. They make money of the free market.

On the other hand the Telecom industry is the exact opposite, they loose money by giving you faster cheaper access with their current business model. Hence they want to make up future potential income by deciding who ,what , and when do you get to do business online.

Comcast could legally extort google for money without net neutrality. They could say you want our users who make up the vast majority of America to access your search site instead of ours then give me this much money or a percentage of your income.





You are right the internet has become a market place, for convenience and has been exploited as such, but that wasn't the intent of the internet to begin with, it was about sharing of information, now the capitalism has take over.


It still is , but for a free market to exist online and for uncontrolled information to be shared on line you NEED net neutrality.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Aazadan

Maybe it will, but nothing in these rules paves the way for that.


That we know of yet.





Considering the bill specifically calls out that the internet will remain untaxed I would say we're in good shape.


The bill wasnt released to the public, so we really don't know the details and loopholes within it.

There are other ways to raise the cost, I wouldn't get too comfortable.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: NYCUltra
The bill wasnt released to the public, so we really don't know the details and loopholes within it.

There are other ways to raise the cost, I wouldn't get too comfortable.


Sure there are. The companies can choose to raise the price of service. Considering the US has some of the highest costs for internet while simultaneously having some of the lowest speeds we've already been the victim of this countless times. Nothing stops the ISP's from doing it again in the future either because they have a monopoly.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
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.

Sometimes you have to make a choice and both of the choices suck. You choose the one that sucks less. Even if it only sucks a little bit less.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I agree, sometimes it all comes down to picking the least sucky of two choices. In this case, Net Neutrality was the choice that sucked less than the alternative.

Maybe in the future it will change and things will get worse, but for now, it's all good. Let's just hope that this will end it and nobody tries to mess with the net again.



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Net Neutrality Works

I guess cartoons like this are why there's such a high level of misunderstanding on what net neutrality is.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join