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.

 

What You Should Know About Net Neutrality

page: 4
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: mOjOm

it is the job of Netflix if they are using up that much bandwidth on SOMEONE ELSES infrastructure, to compensate them for that......

again Netflix is a billion dollar company

Not mom and pop down the road.......


THats how free market works.....Pipes are expensive, thats why not everyone builds them......want to fix that? De regulate it.....

Free market system......

We dont need the gov to tell us how the Internet will be run.......

But too late we got it


If Netflix pays for the extra bandwidth to the ISP, they will pass that extra cost onto the consumer.
If the ISP has to pay for the bandwidth, they will pass that cost onto the consumer.

Either way the consumer pays.

I like the cost up and front at the ISP level so that no matter if it is Netflix or Youtube or Amazon Prime, I am paying up and front and know why.

This puts pressure on those with the ability to expand the networks while Netflix have no such ability.


edit on 3-3-2015 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

The problem was not passing costs on, but more with bandwidth being withheld, even though netflix and it's customers were paying for it.

I had comcast and dropped them as a provider because they were doing this. I thought it would help the problem, but what I found out when I switched to WOW cable, comcast did the exact same thing to them, so my HD netflix wasn't so HD, even though netflix was paying for the pipeline and the bandwidth.

In a powerplay Comcast put in bandwidth limitations without consent, and whenever they felt like it.

Analogy you pay for a 3g network and fast cell connection, but the provider decides that whenever they feel like it they throttle back and give you half of that.

Another analogy would be you go out for breakfast, and order 6 pancakes with strawberries, but the waitress comes out and gives you 3 pancakes and blueberries, she says the cook and owner decided that is all you get.


Net Neutrality does away with all the hidden BS, that is why all these big providers are screaming for this to be over-turned.





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



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
So what we have here is clear evidence that Verizon and other ISPs want to regulate the internet and sabotage certain websites while speeding others along. Thanks for finding that quote by Verizon.

While the internet now allows everyone to have a voice, the ISP vision of the internet in the future would stifle any normal person's voice, it could even stifle innovation by getting in the way of new internet-based companies. It would probably even stifle the voices of their competitors who use the internet for their own web services, like Netflix.

One worst case scenario would be to have to pay extra money for each "bundle" of websites us consumers wanted to visit. Would all of the websites even make it into the bundles? What about ATS? Would it have to be shut down under corporate control of the internet?

I think that Net Neutrality is a good thing.
edit on 03pmTue, 03 Mar 2015 19:53:48 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Net Neutrality sounds lovely in theory, but it's the execution (and executioner) that I'm concerned about. Especially considering all of the secrecy involved with these mysterious 300 pages that the public isn't privy to.

I'm not trying to sound melodramatic, or paranoid for that matter, as I would love for everything the Government gets involved with to be just peachy, but usually, it isn't.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: theantediluvian

I know, I already see it. If I "google" a political issue and "Safari" it, not even close.

Giving government control over political sites, or even the potentiality, is asking the fox to watch over the hen-house.

Yet those very big cats support this!!

How do you reconcile that fact?



Not passing these proposals gives the monopolistic ISP's control. We already know the government controls the media. Allowing corporate control of the internet is effectively government control. With Net Neutrality that becomes more difficult to achieve.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Well thats good I suppose. I mean all those years ago the net was not neutral, now it is, and will be more so now that it is "neutral", kind of like an oxymoron, but hey it sells. Next what we need is a free zone, I suppose they should pass a free internet zone law, were everybody can be "free" that way the internet will be more free.

And well the companies can all argue on who is charging who what and when, and you know all those other details like what will be allowed under who's directives and profit margins. And then? Well we can be back at were we started to begin with.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
Well thats good I suppose. I mean all those years ago the net was not neutral, now it is, and will be more so now that it is "neutral", kind of like an oxymoron, but hey it sells.


No, it's always been Neutral and now it will stay that way. This was about the ISP's making it Non-Neutral, but they lost.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Could you please clarify that? Off the top, I don't see it.

In that explanation, please include the potential downsides that may also exist.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Well i have just joined ATS and i have woken up, i just can not believe how ignorant i used to be! I am against gun control, schools, vaccines, taxes, war and internet control etc.

9/11 has a connection with operation northwoods and it was used as a pretext for global martial law and a total controlled power structure, we the people must stop this evil machine.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

The actual report is 8 pages long, with 292 pages of public comments.

Twitter comment from Gigi Sohn.
edit on 3/3/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Aazadan

Could you please clarify that? Off the top, I don't see it.

In that explanation, please include the potential downsides that may also exist.



Without Net Neutrality corporations can favor any content they wish. To see that it's not just theory, and that they actively want to do this, just look at the first page of this thread. There's quotes there from Verizon in no uncertain terms that that's what they want to do. Now, we already know there are high levels of government/corporate collusion. What happens when the ISP's are favoring political content based on who they like more? To see the end result of that we have to look no further than TV (the model the ISP's want to ultimately have for the internet). There are Democrats who campaign heavily on MSNBC and Republicans who campaign heavily on Fox, politicians will court favor with a particular ISP and Comcast suddenly promotes a conservative agenda while Verizon promotes a liberal one.

Because the ISP's act as monopolies there is no freedom of information, no choice. All news in a local area becomes propaganda for one side, even more so than it already is. There ceases to be an arena of ideas where competing viewpoints can be heard. Ohio which is Comcast country turns into all Democrat voters while Tennessee, the land of Verizon is all Republican. Among other things, this essentially removes voting power from most of the population.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

The actual report is 8 pages long, with 292 pages of public comments.

Twitter comment from Gigi Sohn.

Fair enough, but why haven't we been shown those 8 pages?
edit on 3/3/2015 by ProfessorChaos because: typo



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
Well thats good I suppose. I mean all those years ago the net was not neutral, now it is, and will be more so now that it is "neutral", kind of like an oxymoron, but hey it sells.


No, it's always been Neutral and now it will stay that way. This was about the ISP's making it Non-Neutral, but they lost.


We'll see. At the last minute Google lobbyists pressured Wheeler to make some changes to the bill. Yeah maybe it will help Google roll out fiber that much faster, but then when everyone's using Google's fiber you've inadvertently created yet another monopoly.

Can't help but see Google as like a young OCP from the Robocop movies



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: IntroduceALittleIrony

Yes, we'll see in the future. Yet until then neither you nor I have any idea what else may be in the hidden text. So go ahead and imagine all the worst if you want, I'll hope for the best and simply wait and see what's up.

In either case this was still the best way to go versus handing it all over to the ISP's.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

I already posted why... the GOP keeps blocking the release.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

I agree with your post completely! I am all for "Net Neutrality" if that is really what it is. The government is really good at attaching names that sound really good to things that turn out to be awful. For example - the "Affordable Care Act". Probably a good idea and the title sounds great but the act has not turned out to be affordable or to provide good care as promised.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Ok, I get that part. Or at least, that potentiality.

The rest of the question remains unanswered. How does gov't regulatory power make this 'harder'.

It seems to me all it does is formalize what already exists, as you say.

For the big guys to support this, the has to be a 'quid pro quo' otherwise they'd be screaming bloody blue murder.

I know you have no problem with big gov't and I obviously do. Methinks you trust too much....



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
The rest of the question remains unanswered. How does gov't regulatory power make this 'harder'.


Because it's saying no one, meaning the government or the private corporation can prioritize traffic. In the future maybe there will be a regulation that changes that but that's not what these FCC rules are about.


For the big guys to support this, the has to be a 'quid pro quo' otherwise they'd be screaming bloody blue murder.


The big companies like Ebay, Netflix, Amazon, and others support this because their business model relies on everyone having affordable unrestricted access to the internet. That way the maximum number of people can use their websites. Their interests very much line up with consumer interests, because our interests also involve unrestricted internet access.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

OK. I will buy into it...for now...



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm
If you think the net is neutral or ever was. What can I say...


Ignorance is bliss...


And what this whole thing is. Its another none issue, because like you said the net was neutral before, now with this law or without it, its even more neutral then before, somewhere along the lines of super neutral or super duper neutral. Oh! and you know about which way the check cuts, like 99.99999 of the things brought before congress and the rest of the populous are about.

But yes dude! That's what I said, I like totally agree with you, whatever it is your point is. To quote myself.

So now I suppose that they lost were back to being neutral again.



And well the companies can all argue on who is charging who what and when, and you know all those other details like what will be allowed under who's directives and profit margins. And then? Well we can be back at were we started to begin with.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join