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.
The internet almost broke Thursday night after a heated debated over... the color of a dress. Are you Team White and Gold or Team Blue and Black? Video provided by Newsy Newslook
www.usatoday.com...
The new rules, approved 3 to 2 along party lines, are intended to ensure that no content is blocked and that the Internet is not divided into pay-to-play fast lanes for Internet and media companies that can afford it and slow lanes for everyone else.
originally posted by: Silenceisalie
a reply to: jude11
When I see reports like this, I'm sure it's exactly as you say, bait and switch. But my question is, what is wrong with Net Nutrality? It looks like it protects free speech from what I've read about it. Do I have that wrong?
originally posted by: six67seven
a reply to: jude11
Right, for it's impossible to be aware of both...
haven't you heard? Politicians are gonna do whatever the hell they want!
What are you gonna do about? The same thing you do every day Pinky!
originally posted by: Shamrock6
So I get your point. I see it, and agree to an extent.
But every time something "big" happens, should no other news be reported? Should all media focus solely on that event for, say, six hours? 12? 24? I mean....it's one event. A big event yes, but still it's one event. The rest of the world doesn't stop because something happened. Does it?
originally posted by: jude11
originally posted by: six67seven
a reply to: jude11
Right, for it's impossible to be aware of both...
haven't you heard? Politicians are gonna do whatever the hell they want!
What are you gonna do about? The same thing you do every day Pinky!
And which did you find more entertaining?
Peace
originally posted by: jude11
originally posted by: Silenceisalie
a reply to: jude11
When I see reports like this, I'm sure it's exactly as you say, bait and switch. But my question is, what is wrong with Net Nutrality? It looks like it protects free speech from what I've read about it. Do I have that wrong?
Sorry, I just assumed most knew the pitfalls.
Here's a good read. Short but concise.
reason.com...
Peace
it makes no economic sense from a society-wide perspective to make such a large investment to serve so few people. It's a handout to rural Internet consumers, pure and simple.
What we risk doing by ramping up the government's regulatory authority over the Internet is to make it easier for the government to pressure ISPs, many of which are data custodians, to get what they want.
Comcast and Netflix, two of the main parties in the public debate, are squabbling about who should bear the financial burden of building and maintaining the costly infrastructure needed to deliver streaming video to consumers. There's no dire threat to freedom hinging on the outcome of that fight. The threat to Internet freedom is government control. That means that if you care about liberty, you should oppose Net neutrality and Title II reclassification.