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.

 

LA Times admits that the FCC will be policing the internet under net neutrality.

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
The following video presents highlights from a recent LA Times article entitled "GOP touts its Internet legislation." Here's the main quote from the article that is brought under scrutiny:

"As Chairman Wheeler pushes forward with plans to regulate the Internet, he still refuses to directly answer growing concerns about how the rules were developed, how they are structured and how they will stand up to judicial scrutiny," Chaffetz and Upton said in a statement.


www.youtube.com...
edit on 2-3-2015 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



+7 more 
posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Here's the original story: House Republicans slam FCC net neutrality proposal, tout own bill

The actual context of "police the Internet for abuses" is specific to ISP's throttling traffic, not regulating free speech.


Alarmist nonsense.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: Profusion


Alarmist nonsense.


Phew, that's a relief.




posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord


Alarmist nonsense.




It's a dead giveaway when the source cited is a YouTube video about a news article rather then the news article itself.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: SkepticOverlord


Alarmist nonsense.




It's a dead giveaway when the source cited is a YouTube video about a news article rather then the news article itself.


Yeah, I'm sure that newspaper clipping was a complete FAKE.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
While this story may be bogus,
what the FCC has just done
is not and is real! And we should be alarmed at the new FCC regulations!

These FCC regulations were not voted on by anyone.

The "vote" was within the FCC, who does not have a right under our constitution to impose the rules they have on the internet.

Write to your congressperson and the white house. Go online it is really easy to find out who your congressperson is, who your state senators are, and to access the white house email line.

If you are not willing to complain to the people who can do something about it, then don't just rag on this thread and say it is hopeless to reverse. That is defeatist and will end up with government regulated web sites, and the end of ATS and sites like it.


AND THE END OF EVER LEARNING THE TRUTH, WE WILL ONLY BE SPOON FED WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS US TO THINK!

Let them know that this is regulatory over reach.



The Congress does have the power to stop the FCC totalitarian new regulations! We the people just need to scream loud and hard and let them know they MUST over rule these new regulations
that were foisted upon the american people
this is regulation without representation.


edit on 11Mon, 02 Mar 2015 11:05:38 -0600am30203amk021 by grandmakdw because: addition



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

The interesting thing about republicans that are so ANTI net neutrality principles is that none of them can explain what net neutrality is nor what the internet is.

They are just blindly being good political cheerleaders for their party. To be fair If I were to ask a democrat they would probably not be able to tell me either and be for it as a good political cheerleaders for their party.

This issue just goes to show how both parties have the same agenda and manipulate the issues for their drones to follow.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Does anyone have a link to the actual bill so we can decide for our selves rather than rely on BOTH sides propaganda?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

Of course not, NO ONE has seen it because they refuse to release the regulations so anyone can see them.

I'm sure they're all wonderful and great and everything everyone here has it in their head they are ... just like Barack Obama rides a unicorn that farts rainbows and brings fabulous success to everything he and his administration touch.




posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Of course not, NO ONE has seen it because they refuse to release the regulations so anyone can see them.


It's absurd, how can regulations can be put in place if the people don't know what's being regulated?

Of course conspiracy minded people will find this way too fishy for it to be something that's only positive considering free speech.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

So the owners of this site have been huge proponents of this and you think it will end ats?

How does that work out?

Also how is the internet covered by the constitution?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: stosh64

Of course not, NO ONE has seen it because they refuse to release the regulations so anyone can see them.

I'm sure they're all wonderful and great and everything everyone here has it in their head they are ... just like Barack Obama rides a unicorn that farts rainbows and brings fabulous success to everything he and his administration touch.


So if this is true SO, how can you so confidently state it is nothing but,



Alarmist nonsense

You have inside knowledge you would like to share with us or you just trust our government a hell of a lot more than I do?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

How does ANYONE know if we cant even read it??



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
The thing that is missing here is the statement from David Axelrod during the 2012 presidential elections. Axelron said, that media outlets need to regulated for their content. He was commenting on Fox News running stories about all of the "hit pieces" on the run-up to the elections. Axelrod's desire to silence any descent..."to regulate speech" is a step closer with net neutrality!



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

How does anyone know this is the end of free speech as we know it if no one has read it?

I get your point, but the point is a two way street.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Of course not, NO ONE has seen it because they refuse to release the regulations so anyone can see them.


More alarmist nonsense.

This has been the SOP of the FCC since at least the early 70's. They vote, there's a period of time where they hash out the final edit of the regulations ("editorial privileges") and the dissenting arguments are addressed by the majority. I agree that it seems bizarre and counterintuitive but it's not a deviation from the normal process.

Once that's done, they'll likely publish to the site even before the Federal Register. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can then overrule anything they don't like. After that, it's likely that ISPs will sue.
edit on 2015-3-2 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

Of course. Elections aren't cheap and campaign donations would stop flowing from telecom companies if they didn't fight against net neutrality.

Also, these politicians would loose support from their own party if they didn't go along with everyone else. When you loose support from your own party, you might as well up and resign -- you won't be getting re-elected. This is more blind partisanship, absent of real facts or understanding.

Typical DC nonsense.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: ketsuko
Of course not, NO ONE has seen it because they refuse to release the regulations so anyone can see them.


It's absurd, how can regulations can be put in place if the people don't know what's being regulated?

Of course conspiracy minded people will find this way too fishy for it to be something that's only positive considering free speech.


Basically, the last time they tried the courts chucked it out. So they know they will get sued over the rules again.

So they are staving off legal challenges as long as possible by not putting the rules out where anyone can see them.



Because the text of the rules has not yet been made public, it’s difficult to judge how well they might hold up. The prime questions will be whether or not the agency can sufficiently justify reversing the last decade of its treatment of the Web and whether it took the appropriate administrative steps to get here.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

As opposed to the public comments period most other regulations enjoy?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I just have one simple question for those of you who believe the government will suddenly start censoring the internet or turning off people's internet.

Did the government turn off your electricity when you started posting here?
Did they shut off your water when they discovered you're hoarding it for the inevitable collapse of society?

No?

Then why do you believe they'll treat the internet any differently?




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join