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.

 

Watch the FCC Net Neutrality Meeting Live: Open Internet Passes in 3-2 Vote.

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
The hearing is being streamed live on the Cspan website.
Federal Communications Commission Meeting



Twitter and other social media is pretty much on fire on Net Neutrality right now.
edit on 26-2-2015 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

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




posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Oh, Goodie!

We can all watch the Internet die.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

SO, I know you've posted your thoughts on this before, but just for the sake of the thread, where do you stand on this?

You want the fast lanes? Or are you in favor of something like we have in Canada, where all of it is treated equal? I know there's been a lot of disinformation on either side.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I have a hard time not seeing this possibly going down as a "Read My Lips, I Will give you net neutrality" moment.

Hopefully it won't but we will see.


HUH, I'm cringing in the amount of B$ is spewing out.
edit on 04228America/ChicagoThu, 26 Feb 2015 11:04:01 -0600up2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I'm with the 99.999999% of content originators who are in favor of the Net Neutrality rules as defined in the commissioner's summary: transition.fcc.gov...



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

That's an awfully big number. You are basically making the assumption that no one on the 'net could possibly be against this.




posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I have a hard time not seeing this possibly going down as a "Read My Lips, I Will give you net neutrality" moment.

Hopefully it won't but we will see.


HUH, I'm cringing in the amount of B$ is spewing out.


"read my lips, more new taxes are coming" -Ajit Pai (12:10PM ET)

Pretty good psychic premonition!
edit on 26-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

It's reasonably accurate, when considering companies who provide the content consumed by people online.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
Pretty good psychic premonition!

It's FUD. The summary specifically states no new taxes or universal fund contributions for broadband.

Verizon FIOS is currently governed by Title II of the telecommunications act, and there are no taxes or universal fund contributions on that service.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

What about the independent providers? Or do they not count? I can see how companies would be liking this. They get government involved and they can absorb the new monetary hits. No competition for them. They become the gatekeepers, but there will be a new barrier for entry to the little guys.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: greencmp
Pretty good psychic premonition!

It's FUD. The summary specifically states no new taxes or universal fund contributions for broadband.

Verizon FIOS is currently governed by Title II of the telecommunications act, and there are no taxes or universal fund contributions on that service.


So, we can send you our bills* if they arrive?

*(just the part that represents the increase caused by regulatory burden)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

lol

"Undecided but, probably against" -Tom Wheeler (upon the completion of Ajit Pai's statements)

That was a great dissent. Remember Ajit Pai, we will need him in the next administration.


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



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

He is basically leaving out that it was Verizon and comcasts greed that made it necessary for the gov't to step in.

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.

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.
edit on 29228America/ChicagoThu, 26 Feb 2015 13:29:51 -0600up2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Long story short:
Pro- corporations would never get greedy and destroy the freedom of the net and the little guys with their startups..corporations are love, they are life

Con - Seriously...you can say no throttling in under 300 pages!

..honestly, they both have points....a 300+ government document not analyzed makes me nervous about my toobs



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

"In other words, the beatings will continue until morale improves" (12:33 PM ET)

-Michael O'Rielly - FCC Commissioner (R)
edit on 26-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX




Con - Seriously...you can say no throttling in under 300 pages!


You betcha, but in reality neither party , gov't , or corporations want the consumers to openly speak back or think differently than what the billion dollar Marketing behemoths want you to think. An uncontrolled internet makes it much harder to control information that gets to the public and in return makes it harder to herd the masses.

THEY want to define the problems for you and THEY want to specify the solutions for you and THEY want to specify the consequences and counterpoints to shape your thoughts to theirs. They don't want you to objectively come to your own conclusions on a wide scale.


However, Since the internet is already trashed and damaged by the removal of net neutrality the best we can hope for is what the republicans last couple of campaigns ran on:

"its the lesser of the two evils"



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

I think it is interesting that Tom Wheeler goes out of his way to compare this set of still unreleased regulations to the first amendment.

Obviously, in his mind, we need either a ‘net neutrality’ amendment or a “Free Speech Commission” with extensive rules.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
So basically im going to have to pay for all the data that i am using one, two does this mean the Gov will have control of the internet?? a reply to: SkepticOverlord



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
The Open Internet proposal passed soon after Chairman Wheeler's comment: "This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment was a plan to regulate free speech."



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
When they make it a Title 2 communications will it not be subject to the same censorships and controls as TV and radio?




top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join