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.

 

FCC Commissioner: Free Mobile Video Streaming Might Violate Agency Rules

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Azureblue

They did. It was called Net Neutrality. A lot of us cautioned that allowing these kinds of rules changes would open the door to this, but many here said otherwise.

Now look, we were right after all.


I don't think they would have made all those changes if they did not result in the current situation. Its readily apparent that all the changes were there as cover for bringing in the relevant rule. Its amazing how people will not see.




posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: ketsuko

This is because under Net Neutrality you're not allowed to give preferential treatment to specific packets of data. Making data packets from particular providers not count towards a data cap is a violation of that. It's not a bad thing that things are this way because you really don't want a world where ISP's are able to divide up the internet based on what sites they choose to favor or not favor.

Here's a better article on the subject
www.wired.com...



So instead of being motivated and enabled to make or innovate more bandwidth, for a price, the providers will have to ration out the current supply.

The obvious de facto result of arbitrary and unpredictable interference.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Pretty much. The ISP's don't want to perform the necessary upgrades to their networks. They didn't pay for them the first time around, and instead took government money twice to do so (they pocketed it once, then actually used it the second time).

The US is very far behind in our networks, they're slow, expensive, and out dated compared to other countries. Part of this is because the US is very rural compared to most advanced nations which brings about a lot of challenges but another part is that our corporations who are in charge of this stuff just aren't doing what they need to do because it's expensive.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Pretty much. The ISP's don't want to perform the necessary upgrades to their networks. They didn't pay for them the first time around, and instead took government money twice to do so (they pocketed it once, then actually used it the second time).

The US is very far behind in our networks, they're slow, expensive, and out dated compared to other countries. Part of this is because the US is very rural compared to most advanced nations which brings about a lot of challenges but another part is that our corporations who are in charge of this stuff just aren't doing what they need to do because it's expensive.


The ISPs will do the upgrades when it is profitable. Right now an ISP could do an up grade and have it confiscated, or even get gaffed by an anti-monopoly suit.

There will never be real upgrades if no one pays for them.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Doing the upgrades is never going to be possible, it's the same issue our mobile networks have. In the US we pay the highest prices in the world for mobile service and get some of the slowest speeds. There's no reason to upgrade because competition is impossible. Look at how much trouble Google is having with Google Fiber, that's the best shot for competition that encourages the ISP's to upgrade and it's still probably not going to happen.

Other countries don't have this issue because they inject public funds into their networks viewing data as a utility. In the US though we haven't done that. When we tried we let the ISP's take the money and keep it rather than spend it.

Remember, free markets do not create the best quality products, they create the most competitive products and often times the most competitive product is not the highest quality one but rather the one that's cheapest to deliver. We'll probably never have proper networks unless we start investing public funds into them.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Doing the upgrades is never going to be possible, it's the same issue our mobile networks have. In the US we pay the highest prices in the world for mobile service and get some of the slowest speeds. There's no reason to upgrade because competition is impossible. Look at how much trouble Google is having with Google Fiber, that's the best shot for competition that encourages the ISP's to upgrade and it's still probably not going to happen.

Other countries don't have this issue because they inject public funds into their networks viewing data as a utility. In the US though we haven't done that. When we tried we let the ISP's take the money and keep it rather than spend it.

Remember, free markets do not create the best quality products, they create the most competitive products and often times the most competitive product is not the highest quality one but rather the one that's cheapest to deliver. We'll probably never have proper networks unless we start investing public funds into them.


Products are made by those motivated to make them. The free market provides the most motivation to the most people and so makes the best products.

Usually when a person blames the free market for anything, the blame actually belongs to the status quo power monopoly. If the average income today was 0.0002 % of GDP, like it was in 1913, there would be a lot more money in available for consumers to spend on everything. Instead of 0.0002% of GDP, the average person has an income of 0.00003% of GDP, as of 2003. The average person had ten times more wealth before the gov started "helping".

1913 USA population 97225000...........1913 GNP $517,383,000,000...... GNP/population = 1.87e-4 or 0.0002 in 1913
2003 USA population est 293million...2003 GNP $8,430,762,000,000........... GNP/pop=3.47e-5 or 0.00003 in 2003
First Population URL I saw
First GDP URL I saw

That reduction is all due to government--war time mega waste and peace time redistribution and regulation, mostly made possible by the consensus to use fraudulent banking practices.


edit on 12-3-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Usually when a person blames the free market for anything, the blame actually belongs to the status quo power monopoly. If the average income today was 0.0002 % of GDP, like it was in 1913, there would be a lot more money in available for consumers to spend on everything. Instead of 0.0002% of GDP, the average person has an income of 0.00003% of GDP, as of 2003. The average person had ten times more wealth before the gov started "helping".


That's not how that works. As the population rises, your percentage share of GDP goes down. In a 10 person society the average is .1% of GDP, in 100 it's .01%.

The numbers you're actually looking for are dollars per person, which is the opposite. $5,321.5 in 1913 vs 28,773.93 in 2003. Of course that doesn't take into account purchasing power or inflation, both of which are significant factors, purchasing power more so.


That reduction is all due to government--war time mega waste and peace time redistribution and regulation, mostly made possible by the consensus to use fraudulent banking practices.


That's all well and good, but not the point of this thread which is about the FCC's decision. The FCC has very little to do with banking.

The FCC's decision here is good, to do otherwise would violate Net Neutrality principals, which are that for the consumer level, data should not be prioritized to do otherwise will carve up the internet in the US which will be a huge detriment to our economy. The rest of the world on the other hand will stick with NN and not really care that we self destruct.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Usually when a person blames the free market for anything, the blame actually belongs to the status quo power monopoly. If the average income today was 0.0002 % of GDP, like it was in 1913, there would be a lot more money in available for consumers to spend on everything. Instead of 0.0002% of GDP, the average person has an income of 0.00003% of GDP, as of 2003. The average person had ten times more wealth before the gov started "helping".


That's not how that works. As the population rises, your percentage share of GDP goes down. In a 10 person society the average is .1% of GDP, in 100 it's .01%.



In a free market, only the consumers and the structure of production buy stuff. The structure of production is paid for by borrowed savings and by the costs passed on to the consumer of the final product. All of the GNP comes from the consumers, and the consumers are buying real stuff. More people means more consumption, which requires more production. The basic ratio stays the same.

The system we have had since 1913 buys resources without production. The system pays for it with paperwork. The gov is 40% of the GNP but does not supply 40% of the products consumed. The difference between the Powers That Be mandatory counterfeit money spent into the economy and the goods and services put into the economy is another definition of the inflation rate. The inflation rate, or in other words, the money put into the economy with nothing material to back it, is constantly reducing personal wealth compared to the total production.




The numbers you're actually looking for are dollars per person, which is the opposite. $5,321.5 in 1913 vs 28,773.93 in 2003. Of course that doesn't take into account purchasing power or inflation, both of which are significant factors, purchasing power more so.


In a consumer, and only consumer, economy, all of the GNP is spent by the masses. More masses means more GNP, less masses means less GNP. All money directly represents real goods and services. There is no money that has not been given its value by an increase in actual real wealth, be it service or new material goods.





That's all well and good, but not the point of this thread which is about the FCC's decision. The FCC has very little to do with banking.


The basic complaint was about the cost of the service. That cost would be known to be necessary and also quite small if folks knew the market was competing and each citizen had the entire share of wealth that they had in 1913.




The FCC's decision here is good, to do otherwise would violate Net Neutrality principals, which are that for the consumer level, data should not be prioritized to do otherwise will carve up the internet in the US which will be a huge detriment to our economy. The rest of the world on the other hand will stick with NN and not really care that we self destruct.


This decision is drugs to an addict, made by the drug seller.

Freedom has a price and they take more money away every generation.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   



The ISPs will do the upgrades when it is profitable. Right now an ISP could do an up grade and have it confiscated, or even get gaffed by an anti-monopoly suit.

There will never be real upgrades if no one pays for them.



Interesting, that's not something I considered.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join