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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
AT&T would have gone out of business over night.


Do you really believe that? Did you not see what they did to Netflix? If you revolt by taking your business off of their services, is your competitor going to do the same, or is your competitor going to use your withdrawl to gain market share? Can you personally live with no phone, internet, or tv service (since they do the bundles these days)? Can your business operate without phone service? With none of these services can you find new job opportunities?

How about the financial sector with no ability to use a network? No ATM's, no stock trades, nothing.

They could do anything they want, and society in general will not revolt because it's still better than the alternative.




posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
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...



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
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...



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I understand what you are saying, but sometimes you have no choice but to make sacrifices for something important.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: ScientificRailgun


Nobody is going to censor American internet. If they did, the veritable army of neckbeards and perverts that would be knocking down the white house's door would innumerable.


I love this quote.

We give government more power to protect "the people" from greedy businesses, always stating that we can't have a free market because "the people" are too stupid, lazy, or apathetic to protest corporate abuse and need to be saved from themselves.

But, here you are implying that it's OK to give government more power because "the people" will actually revolt against government.
You misunderstand what I mean. And I also like that you cherrypicked the ONE sarcastic comment in the multitudes of reasoned, thoughtful responses I've posted in this thread. I see your game.

The Government cannot, and will not suddenly start censoring the internet. There's this pesky little document called the "Constitution" and it's "free speech" thing standing in the way.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: ScientificRailgun


Nobody is going to censor American internet. If they did, the veritable army of neckbeards and perverts that would be knocking down the white house's door would innumerable.


I see your game.

The Government cannot, and will not suddenly start censoring the internet. There's this pesky little document called the "Constitution" and it's "free speech" thing standing in the way.


I'd laugh at the falseness of your statement if the facts of the matter weren't so appallingly tragic.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

The facts? How long have you been in the IT industry? How closely have you worked with various ISPs and their shady freakin' dealings? How well do you know of the de-facto price fixing and shared monopolies that the telecoms negotiate with each other? Do you know how much it ACTUALLY costs to deliver internet to your home, as compared to say, Television service?

You pay much more for (many times) LESS bandwidth than it takes to deliver a single HDTV signal to your home. And you think the telecoms aren't screwing you already? You think they aren't, and haven't, tried to screw over websites and basically pull mafia tactics like "pay us more or we'll throttle your website to death"?

Did you know that even despite caving into their demands and paying MORE to telecoms, Netflix STILL got throttled by them?

So trustworthy, these telecoms.

You don't think Verizon hasn't ABUSED the current Title II Common Carrier classification for massive government subsidies to build out it's infrastructure, then when it was done, backed OUT of it's Title II status when it was no longer giving them a financial windfall?

Guess what? They did.

And you want to trust that they'll just play nice and not force YOU the consumer into some asinine "package" deal where you pay MORE simply for the privilege of accessing Netflix, or Hulu?

No thanks.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
The summary makes it clear in my mind. It is about certain corporations getting what they want, but nobody here seems to have mentioned it.

What percentage of traffic on the net is composed of "illegal" audio, video, and ebooks? How much lost revenue do you figure is assumed by these industries related to such content?

Say goodbye to file-sharing as we've known it.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: Aazadan

I understand what you are saying, but sometimes you have no choice but to make sacrifices for something important.



But for every sacrifice you make, which carries severe economic consequences, someone else is going to take advantage of your exit from the marketplace and gain. A boycott is not a solution. It's like boycotting electricity or fuel. Even if you have the resolve to do so, most people will not and any such boycott requires massive participation in order to be effective.

With ISP's a small boycott actually HELPS them because it reduces strain on the network, which means they can avoid the needed infrastructure upgrades this whole thing is about in the first place. They want to reduce demand to not upgrade, by reducing your own demand you actually help them.

The best thing you can do is to bring their services to a halt. Use as much bandwidth as possible.
edit on 3-3-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
The summary makes it clear in my mind. It is about certain corporations getting what they want, but nobody here seems to have mentioned it.

What percentage of traffic on the net is composed of "illegal" audio, video, and ebooks? How much lost revenue do you figure is assumed by these industries related to such content?

Say goodbye to file-sharing as we've known it.


They already tried this and were shut down. Comcast blocked torrents for years until they finally realized it was pointless. Most studies show that piracy helps revenue too.

They'll probably take some shots at file sharing over the years, but it's unlikely for anything to come out of it.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun


You misunderstand what I mean. And I also like that you cherrypicked the ONE sarcastic comment in the multitudes of reasoned, thoughtful responses I've posted in this thread. I see your game.


I'm not playing a game, your other responses were reasonable, there was no reason for me to reply to them.

It was just that one comment that stuck out to me, and after rereading, I admit that I misinterpreted what you were saying.


The Government cannot, and will not suddenly start censoring the internet. There's this pesky little document called the "Constitution" and it's "free speech" thing standing in the way.


Yes, we have the Constitution, but for all of it's virtues, I am of the opinion that the majority of our politicians don't care.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic

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.


No, it just needs to be taken entirely out of context and manipulated by a conspiracy theorist who prefers abductive reasoning over deductive reasoning, then perpetuated by other unthinking "conspiracy theorists" who find suspicion and paranoia in everything.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:24 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.

We cant see anything anymore. It's all secret and under national security. We gave our rights away out of fear. Laws were passed out of that fear, and now I fear we are screwed. No Pun Intended. Once there signed into law that's it.

I take the Yemen situation as one case...
(A)Yemen was a country we heavily worked with to acquire targets for drone strikes. We the U.S., together with their gov., cooperated in weeding out these bad men who threaten that region.

How were these strikes approved?
(B) Every Tuesday, John O. Brennan the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Barack Obama: POTUS, meet to comb over pictures with files of accused terrorist. They than pick which targets to strike, and Poof the drones are off on the hunt.

My looming question is this. A government (Yemen) is working hand in hand with the most powerful country in the world (U.S.). Yemen helps identify the local bad guys. We than proceed to use one of the most powerful tools in the arsenal to wipe them off the planet. Our Drones.

How does that government fall to rebels so easy? Easy enough to where our marines had to turn over their weapons and abandon embassy.

Didn't we have a strong hold there? We were basically assisting Yemen gov. with drone strikes.
Did we kill the wrong guys? Thus empowering the actual threat.
Did our strikes cause some massive bonding between local citizens that lead them to band together and overthrow the gov.?
Can i see a list of those guys who were targeted with drones? Maybe inquiring minds can help figure out where we went wrong.

Answer to all the questions is simple. Whatever happened is Secret. Don't ask cause you can't know.

We have opened the door to a future mad man sitting in the White House using our countries name & power to do as he pleases. I don't know who the next president will be, or who will come after that. I will bet you that sooner or later that power will be 100% absolutely corrupted.

As the old saying goes... Power Corrupts _ Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.




new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join