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.

 

While everyone argues who has the biggest ties to Russia the FCC is poised to destroy NetNeutrality

page: 2
50
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

But the ISP's aren't satisfied with their few billion in profit every year, they have to screw the little guy over to make a few more billion in order to afford that extra vacation house and luxury sports car. How can they possibly live comfortably without those things? I thin k you're just selfish and jealous of those rich people.

/sarcasm




posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I'd like to see this pinned to the top of the front page until the vote.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   
The packaging idea is ridiculous, wonder where this site would fit in since it's not one of the "big mainstream" type ones. It would also include a data cap, especially for smaller sites and of course streaming and gaming. The rampant Anti NN botting on the FCC(likely in on it- follow the money) site will probably overrule any real public commentary used as the motivation to pass this which for the most part has been against it.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Thanks for the update, killing net neutrality concerns me much more than the Russia investigation. The internet is fine the way it is, I have quite a lot of trouble believing that ending net neutrality will make it any better. From the source in the O.P. about Portugal:


Companies unable or unwilling to fork out the cash will find it hard to compete, while customers may see their internet service offered in tiered “bundles,” similar to the way television channels are grouped by cable providers.


The bundles plan is a bunch of B.S. - I should be able to visit any site I want to online without paying extra for it. Not only that, corporations might limit access or charge extra to visit websites not in their bundles. What will happen to ATS? How will I be able to do research on Google if I can't access most of the websites?


Consider Spain and Portugal. Lisbon-based telecommunications firm MEO has been rolling out mobile packages (link in Portuguese) that provide users with data plans limited to specific apps. Customers will be charged more for using data for apps outside the package relative to those in the preferred packages.


In addition to all of this, I've heard that ending net neutrality could increase how much money streaming services like Netflix and Hulu have to pay service providers, raising their prices, and even putting not as popular streaming services out of business.

Right now, I do pay $70 a month for internet, but I use it for gaming, streaming on Hulu, Netflix, and YouTube, and visiting tons of different websites while doing research on current events. Will some of that be impossible in the future, or knocked out of my price range?


edit on 02pmThu, 02 Nov 2017 18:23:19 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: cinerama

if this was under Obama, it would be ' Obama to destroy net neutrality'


You are correct but it was Obama's FCC chair that was enforcing Net Neutrality and it is Trump's FCC chair that is trying destroy it.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
(Unapologetic Bump)



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 04:38 AM
link   
If it does go bad, I think that everyone not following what is going on will flip out when they realize that they have to pay more to visit the same sites etc that they used too. And at that point force the isp's to revert back, or open the way for a new "net neutral" isp to form and crush the competition. If that happens, buy as much stock as you can at the ipo



Wishful thinking



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

Haven't we beat this thing like a million times already? It's getting so annoying to see them try sneak it through every year under different names and parties.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

A little bump...



Thanks,
blend



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
This article is from May, and I really think consumers will get screwed some how no matter which way this goes.
Lord knows my cable bill gets higher...and HIGHER each year,

What does this mean for me?

It depends on which side of this argument you believe.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai gets meme-ified on a protester's sign outside the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC, before Pai's arrival on May 5.

Broadband companies and Pai argue that investment will pour into broadband networks once the rules are lifted. Consumers will have faster access to the internet at a lower cost, they say. For example, advertisers might subsidize wireless or broadband service for customers who click on their advertisements. Broadband companies, which have already begun bundling video services with their internet access to offer consumers a better deal, could even more aggressive in their offers to entice consumers.

But many Democrats, like Senators Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Al Franken of Minnesota, as well as net neutrality advocates argue these potential benefits come at a high a cost. Without rules protecting an open internet, startups could be shut out of the market in favor of bigger players. This will lead to fewer choices and less innovation, which eventually will lead to higher prices and less access to content. In other words, the internet of the future may look more like today's cable TV with your broadband company determining what websites and services you can access.

The reality is likely somewhere in the middle. ...

www.cnet.com...



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
This article is from May, and I really think consumers will get screwed some how no matter which way this goes.
Lord knows my cable bill gets higher...and HIGHER each year,

What does this mean for me?

It depends on which side of this argument you believe.


Well.. we know one way.. the direction they are trying to go, will certainly lead to those sorts of issues. Bundled, censored-by-pay Internet. But.. the current way MIGHT go that way.. one day.. maybe? It's been running just fine for a long time.. so it's just guesswork that it might change for the worse. I think leaving it alone is the best bet.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: swedy13
a reply to: BlackJackal

Haven't we beat this thing like a million times already? It's getting so annoying to see them try sneak it through every year under different names and parties.


that should tell the people something. they are spending hundreds of millions to sneak this by.

surely its for the good of the people,
edit on 531130America/ChicagoFri, 03 Nov 2017 15:53:50 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chickensalad
I'd like to see this pinned to the top of the front page until the vote.

Pin It!



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

What if someone uses an VPN? This would undoubtedly be controlled by IP.

Also, the dates on this document are as follows: (isn't a bit outdated, in that it was 6 months ago?) How do you know they're acting on this right now?

Document Dates

Released On: May 23, 2017
Comment: Jul 17, 2017
Adopted On: May 18, 2017
Issued On: May 23, 2017
Document Numbers

DA/FCC: FCC-17-60
edit on 3-11-2017 by IlluminatiTechnician because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
themerkle.com...

Seems like a rumor.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Good, net neutrality is a giant nothing burger. It's a distraction issue.



posted on Nov, 4 2017 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

I will hold my judgment until the Corporations actually charge based on online bandwidth. It hasn't been done yet. And if they actually do then I can bet the right will join the left for Net Neutrality and the corps will lose. But you can not regulate something that has yet to happen and that is why the regulation is not needed until it actually happens.
edit on 4-11-2017 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2017 @ 04:58 AM
link   
I lived the first 25 years of my life without the internet. It wouldn't hurt me one bit to cancel.



posted on Nov, 4 2017 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: cinerama

Yeah keep in mind a sizable portion of this very forum believes Trump and Co's endeavor to destroy Net Neutrality is a good thing and another way to stick it to those Libs!


Oh yeah? Well I challenge you and everyone that starred your post to give me just three examples of such. Shouldn’t be too hard since it would be a “sizable portion“ of 300k+ members.



posted on Nov, 4 2017 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Ajit Pai has openly admitted to wanting to scrap net neutrality. What made Trump think this guy was a good fit is beyond me, it's obvious he's in the pockets of the ISP's who are the ones who would benefit the most from ending net neutrality.

No Trump supporters have chimed in yet, I wonder why?


I voted for Trump and I say fire every last politician (Republican or Democrat) that supports net neutrality. And if Trump supports it, fire Trump too!

Asktheanimals thanks for that link, I signed the pitition and I also retweeted Occupythefcc.com. I have over ten thousand followers on twitter so that should put a tiny dent in it.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join