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 Net May Be “Neutral” But The FCC Is Most Certainly Not

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Interesting article interviewing two commissioners of the FCC. They basically confirm my feelings on Net Neutrality as nothing more than a power grab. As I've stated in other threads, I'm no cheerleader for the ISP's but I think the FCC taking over is no answer either. Net neutrality may look like a good idea to a lot of people now but I fear we will look back on it with much regret in the near future.

TechFreedom held a fireside chat on Feb. 27th with two FCC commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly, and the two of them concurred that the new regulations are far-reaching, largely unchecked and pose a threat to consumer bills and to innovation in the industry.
Watchdog.org

Ajit Pai openly questioned what the problem was, saying, “There’s never been a systemic analysis of what the problem with the Internet is. In this order, you see scattered niche examples [Comcast and BitTorrent, Apple and FaceTime, others] all of which were resolved, mind you, through private sector initiatives.” He continued, saying that the FCC’s net neutrality regulatory regime is a solution that won’t work in search of a problem that doesn’t exist.” Essentially, this is, contrary to the assertion of activists and others, a vaguely justified power grab by a government agency.


This conspiratorial and wide-ranging thinking on the part of FCC is not a bug, but rather a feature. O’Rielly openly said that “it’s intended to catch everybody”. Pai noted that the FCC was going to centralize powers over what infrastructure was deployed and where through the use of statutes and other laws; O’Rielly mentioned specifically that the FCC was going to “use Section 201 [of the Communications Act] to do it’s dirty work.”


The consumer will inherit many of these new costs and burdens. O’Rielly outright told the audience that “Rates are going to go up because of this.” The new regulations also fail to recognize the burden of local telecommunications taxes, especially in major cities where tax rates on mobile service are often incredibly high. The new regulations, combined with the laws of local governments, stand to impose even more costs onto consumers.The outlook the two gave was anything but bright–the worries of small government advocates seem justified. The new FCC regulations will, in concert with other laws and under the directive of an organization looking for future problems rather than current problems, give more power to government, more restrictions to innovators, and more costs to the people.


Commissioner Pai summed it up best: “This issue has been largely fact-free for the better part of a decade, and I think it’s frankly shocking that decision-making on something as important as this has been thrown by the wayside in favor of what I consider to be an ideological agenda.” The net may be “neutral” but the FCC is most certainly not.




posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: jtrenthacker

Doesn't it suck that the FCC won't let me be, or let me be me, so let me see...

But seriously, everything is a power grab these days. If anyone thinks that anything that has happened in the last 14 years or so is in the interest of the average citizen or in the spirit of more freedom is insane.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
The telecoms have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to self-regulate.

I'm no fan of either option, but the classifying the internet as a utility seems to me to be the best of two bad options.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
He brings up a point that I have been pondering


He continued, saying that the FCC’s net neutrality regulatory regime is a solution that won’t work in search of a problem that doesn’t exist.”

What was wrong with what the internet was before?



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: jtrenthacker

I couldn't agree more.

Now, let me get my tinfoil hat....

Perhaps as the Internet is a DARPA invention and tool...their intent was to let it go mainstream and become ubiquitous with the mainstream, their intent was to get us hooked and then waltz back in and take a higher level of control once we'd become inseparably addicted.

Just like a crack dealer will often give something for free, knowing that then they will have a buyer for life...



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: jtrenthacker

I couldn't agree more.

Now, let me get my tinfoil hat....

Perhaps as the Internet is a DARPA invention and tool...their intent was to let it go mainstream and become ubiquitous with the mainstream, their intent was to get us hooked and then waltz back in and take a higher level of control once we'd become inseparably addicted.

Just like a crack dealer will often give something for free, knowing that then they will have a buyer for life...


Interesting. Also terrifying if that is even remotely true. I just checked, I'm out of tinfoil! I'm doooooooooomed!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: nullafides

If you know the history of the internet you'd probably be surprised. DARPA bankrolled it, yes. But it was primarily Universities that developed and implemented the technology.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
What was wrong with what the internet was before?


What we've had all along IS Net Neutrality. It's just that Comcast started slowing down certain people's (Netflix) information and bullied them to pay massive fines. And it worked. As soon as Netflix paid, Comcast loosened up on them.

The big telecomms (Comcast, Verizon, and others) don't want neutrality. THEY want to be able to control the internet. Comcast sued the FCC and won. THAT'S why the FCC had to change the classification of the Internet - so Comcast and the others couldn't continue to bully people by restricting (throttling) their bandwidth.

Please, Please, PLEASE read this: The Oatmeal on Net Neutrality

This graph shows the importance of Net Neutrality: Comcast/Netflix Graph

And remember, the vast majority of the people want net neutrality. It's only the GOP politicians that are against it, because the big telecomms pay them to be...www.washingtonpost.com...
edit on 3/5/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: jtrenthacker



"the FCC’s net neutrality regulatory regime is a solution that won’t work in search of a problem that doesn’t exist."


Que the statist apologists...
edit on 5-3-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
The telecoms have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to self-regulate.

I'm no fan of either option, but the classifying the internet as a utility seems to me to be the best of two bad options.


I'd have to argue that giving private businesses the right to do what they want with their products should always trump government interference, except in those cases when they impede on the rights of others. There is no right to internet access, let alone fast internet access.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
The Comcast/Netflix issue is always brought up and I get it. However, if I was a Comcast customer and they started jacking around with the service that I paid for, then I would drop them for another ISP.

I just moved to Portland. I currently use Frontier FIOS service. Portland is in talks to with Google to bring their fiber here in a year or so. Already I've seen a couple ISP's like Centurylink announce that they will be building their own gigabit services in the area to compete with Google. Whenever these services are available, I'll drop Frontier like a bad habit.

Competition is good. If an ISP isn't offering good service, then they will start to lose business to the competition that can fill that gap.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

As opposed to the corporate apologists who insist a problem doesn't exist despite the multitudes of problems that have already been exposed (such as extorting companies for bandwidth, abusing Title II regulations, price-fixing, etc)?

It's funny, ATS always complains that the government is in the pockets of corporations, yet when the government does something that the corporations don't like, people start parroting the corporate propaganda.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I'd have to argue that giving private businesses the right to do what they want with their products should always trump government interference


So… it would be okay for your call from your Verizon phone in NYC to be given degraded audio quality and a time limit if you're calling someone on Southwest Texas Phone company in Texas, or even no access at all to a CenturyLink person in California?

This is what the common carrier classification for phone lines prevents. Because, that madness was going on before the Telecommunications Act.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
people start parroting the corporate propaganda.


Because the corporate propaganda and lies have been expertly crafted into tantalizing soundbites and disseminated through conservative pundits and paid politicians.

Too many people hear/read those tantalizing soundbites and stupid tweets that confirm their anti-Obama bias, and then start parroting the lies along with all the other like-minded lock-step lemmings.




posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
The telecoms have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to self-regulate.

I'm no fan of either option, but the classifying the internet as a utility seems to me to be the best of two bad options.


I'd have to argue that giving private businesses the right to do what they want with their products should always trump government interference, except in those cases when they impede on the rights of others. There is no right to internet access, let alone fast internet access.
I agree there's no right to internet access. But ISPs are treating the internet like it belongs to them, which is not the case. More accurately, most of the internet backbone's infrastructure belongs to companies like Level 3, which I have not seen put a dog in the fight yet. (Though I could be wrong). The infrastructure the ISPs own are from the backbone to the End User.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun
Why not a right?
news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

I do see that changing in the future, yes. Internet Access will BE a right certainly in many areas within the next few decades. In a country like the U.S. though, where not even power or water is considered a "right", I don't see that changing soon.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
The telecoms have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to self-regulate.

I'm no fan of either option, but the classifying the internet as a utility seems to me to be the best of two bad options.


I'd have to argue that giving private businesses the right to do what they want with their products should always trump government interference, except in those cases when they impede on the rights of others. There is no right to internet access, let alone fast internet access.
I agree there's no right to internet access. But ISPs are treating the internet like it belongs to them, which is not the case. More accurately, most of the internet backbone's infrastructure belongs to companies like Level 3, which I have not seen put a dog in the fight yet. (Though I could be wrong). The infrastructure the ISPs own are from the backbone to the End User.


I found this from Level 3: Comments From Level 3 Communications

In short, they for net neutrality.

They bring up a lot of great points about the ISP's behavior as the "gatekeepers" and pointing out what they want net neutrality to prevent. I can also say that I agree with those points. My worry is what will become of this in the future? Once the FCC has their hooks in, things can change. I really do hope I'm wrong and that access and services for the internet improve for everyone.
edit on 5-3-2015 by jtrenthacker because: words is hard



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: jtrenthacker

Ahh that's awesome to see one of the major backbone companies being for net neutrality. Also goes to kinda prove it's not an issue of bandwidth, like the telecoms claim for their price gouging, but rather just shady business dealings to screw both websites AND consumers.

Don't get me wrong, I hold the same reservations about the FCC's role in this that many do, but I am also an eternal optimist when it comes to the internet.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: jtrenthacker

Doesn't it suck that the FCC won't let me be, or let me be me, so let me see...

But seriously, everything is a power grab these days. If anyone thinks that anything that has happened in the last 14 years or so is in the interest of the average citizen or in the spirit of more freedom is insane.


This pretty much sums up everything I've ever learned about the world.

Sad.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join