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.

 

Court Backs Rules Treating Internet as Utility, Not Luxury

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Blueracer




My point is that government involvement isn't always needed.


Agreed. Usually when gov't gets involved we the public get screwed and a Princeton Study confirmed it. . That is why I like lame duck congress and believe we need smaller gov't.

However, this was a very unusual circumstance that rarely happens. The reason the Utility thing happened was not because of the consumer or the gov't , but rather because something very rare occurred.

The Online Tech Oligopoly (Netflix,Amazon,Google) actually has a business model that favors the consumers best interest when it comes to the internet, which is something that rarely happens. Netflix,Amazon,Google make more money by having more users on the internet with cheaper rates ,unlimited uncapped bandwidth , and faster speeds. That is why even Google is implementing their higher quality ISP service for much less money and funding new methods to get the consumer access to the internet for low cost.

Had one of the greediest most hated Oligopoly (telecom: comcast,att,verizon) had there way to undo net neutrality principles the internet would have died over night and the Online Tech Oligopoly would have been at their mercy.

So the Online Tech Oligopoly had to use their power and money to lobby the gov't to make sure that didn't happen. Not because the Online Tech Oligopoly cares for the consumer but rather their livelyhood depended on it. However we were lucky that there business model when it comes to the internet is more inline with the consumers best interest. Unlike the telecom business model where they make more money by strong arming every penny from the consumer with their organized monopolies.

Not to mention the internet is not a commodity but rather a global market place and giving control to the ISP would have been creating a fixed market.

The utility option was the best option out of two crappy options which by the way not even the FCC wanted to do. Originally the FCC was on board with the ISP and wanting to kill neutrality and had the cards stack by a revolving door policy , where the FCC head and ISP Lobbyist head switched head honcho positions. It was not until the Online tech companies that got on board with their lobbying dollar and power that this utility option came about.

It was truly the best out of two crappy options and nothing more.
edit on 24630America/ChicagoWed, 15 Jun 2016 08:24:54 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blueracer
Is it a good thing? Now there will be more government involvement in it. That is never good.



I agree. the internet is more than just a "necessity".

It is a forum for free speech and free expression.

And now the government is involved in that.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Shadoefax




We can now add another huge victory for the little guys.


Technically the little guy had nothing todo with this. We just happened to be lucky that another Oligarch (Tech: Google,amazon,netflix) has a business model that is more in line with the benefit of the consumers.

The online tech companies want cheaper,faster, unlimited access for the consumer not because they care but because their livelihood depends on it.

Very rare does this happen and we were lucky.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Blueracer
Is it a good thing? Now there will be more government involvement in it. That is never good.



I agree. the internet is more than just a "necessity".

It is a forum for free speech and free expression.

And now the government is involved in that.


Etitherway the gov't would have been involved but you have it backwards in regards to free speech.

Killing net neutrality principles is what would have killed free speech over night. Net neutrality principles is what allows for free speech.

Had the ISP had their way they could have decided what you had access to the internet.




edit on 23630America/ChicagoWed, 15 Jun 2016 08:23:21 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

That's because the internet is a commodity that people use for the expression of free speech.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: interupt42

That's because the internet is a commodity that people use for the expression of free speech.


Its not a commodity its a global market place and doing away with net neutrality principles would have created a fixed controlled economy manipulated by the ISP.

edit on 19630America/ChicagoWed, 15 Jun 2016 09:19:12 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

Do you think that government should have an input in the "neutrality" of the print media?

How about sites that espouse any given ideology?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: interupt42

Do you think that government should have an input in the "neutrality" of the print media?

How about sites that espouse any given ideology?


Print media doesn't compare because the print media is not an oligarch with lack of competition where you can only buy and get access to one magazine.

If we had access to numerous comparable ISP and competition and not a monopolized industry then I would agree to keep the FCC out of it. However that is not the case. Actually killing net netrality would have made the industry even less competitive.





How about sites that espouse any given ideology?


No I believe in freedom of speech hence why the importance of net neutrality principles. Killing net neutrailyt principles would have given the ISP and the govt control of what you get to access.


edit on 22630America/ChicagoWed, 15 Jun 2016 09:22:35 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
A "utility", like electricity, water and natural gas?

Oh sheesh.

This means they might be able to charge a baseline of X for the first Y bytes used and then Z for every byte used thereafter.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: paradoxious




This means they might be able to charge a baseline of X for the first Y bytes used and then Z for every byte used thereafter.


You do understand that was exactly what the ISP wanted to do by killing Net Neutrality principles, right.

They were going to charge you x amount to access comcast Amazon place, Comcast netflix place, amazon google place and then x+4(Y) amount for the google package , x+4(Y) netflix package ,etc

If you want to access non comcast approved sites then you need to pay x amount for that tiered package.
You want streaming thats x amount, you want gaming that is x amount .

You want to access ComcastSucks.com to bad, you only get to access howgreatcomcast.com is.

That is why they wanted to kill net neutrality .
edit on 42630America/ChicagoWed, 15 Jun 2016 09:42:49 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
The companies that want to get rid of net neutrality just want to be able to limit your access, and then charge you to get things you originally already had



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42
Personally, I have very few qualms with ISP's throttling content to some users in order to guarantee some level of quality of service to other users. I also believe sites' content shouldn't be given preferential treatment either. So, as an example, if I'm watching a Netflix HD stream, I believe the ISP should provide adequate bandwidth for that, but I also don't want that interfering with my neighbors' abilities to watch their Hulu or whichever or otherwise impact their Internet experience.


For what it's worth, around here, the local electricity provide can interrupt service in order to provide for peak load balancing and the water provider can reduce mains pressure to limit water usage. If Internet service is now a utility, the ISP's can use these as examples of how and why they should be able to limit Internet access.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: paradoxious




If Internet service is now a utility, the ISP's can use these as examples of how and why they should be able to limit Internet access.


The FCC Did NOT Make the Internet a Public Utility

The FCC is using Title II of the Communications Act to enforce net neutrality principles. As part of this decision, the Commission also refrains from enforcing provisions of Title II that are not relevant to modern broadband service.

This is the gist of it:


No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

www.fcc.gov...


Its not perfect by any means nor does it mean that we are safe nor they (gov;t & private) will stop trying to bastardized it. However, we only had 2 options and reclassification under the Title II of the Communications Act was the much much much better one of the two options.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42

The FCC Did NOT Make the Internet a Public Utility

Ok ... the Internet is not technically a public utility. But your source is really just picking at nits. For all intents and purposes, the Internet will be treated as a public utility of sorts. Bloomberg even went so far as to suggest:


The court likened internet service providers to utilities, saying they “act as neutral, indiscriminate platforms for transmission of speech.”


The end result, as FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler stated:


“Today’s ruling is a victory for consumers and innovators who deserve unfettered access to the entire web ... it ensures the internet remains a platform for unparalleled innovation, free expression and economic growth.”


edit on 6/15/2016 by Shadoefax because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadoefax

Greater government control is *not* a victory for the little guy.

Not in the slightest.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: nullafides

I'll take greater government control over greater corporate control if those are the only two options.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: nullafides

I'll take greater government control over greater corporate control if those are the only two options.





I'll take greater government control over greater corporate control if those are the only two options.


Lobbyist draft the laws not congress , Congress just robo signs the laws.

So when Republicans blame the gov't for being inefficient and wasteful its really corporate America that wrote those policies not the gov't.

When Democrats blame corporations and want more gov't oversight they are really giving corporations more control of the people and the market.


They have the people perfectly chasing their tail. Its rather brilliant and disgusting at the same time.

This net neutrality regulation was different because it was drafted and pushed by a Corporate Behemoth that by luck, its way of making money coincides with the best interest of the internet.

edit on 29630America/ChicagoThu, 16 Jun 2016 17:29:51 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: nullafides

I'll take greater government control over greater corporate control if those are the only two options.


Oh, so...the government can make "rules" for you...out the freaking wazoo....whereas if you keep it unregulated....there *is* actually a chance for the industry to change due to competition.

Keep dreamin the dream.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join