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 plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use

page: 1
59
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+20 more 
posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Well, the FCC plans to get rid of net neutrality soon. This could give more power to already monopoly structured internet providers.

The argument is, that this would give consumers "more choice" in internet providers. Which is ludacris seeing as anyone outside a big city (and many in big cities) only have one viable broadband option.

The idea that net neutrality is "to much government regulation" is a fallacy set up to help get rid of it. The fact is, it just makes an equal playing field and is honestly not very regulatory in nature. It's a simple rule, provide what is paid for.


Federal regulators announced a plan Tuesday that would give Internet providers broad powers to determine what websites and online services their customers can see and use, and at what cost.

The move sets the stage for a crucial vote next month at the Federal Communications Commission that could reshape the entire digital ecosystem. The FCC’s Republican chairman, Ajit Pai, has made undoing the government's net neutrality rules one of his top priorities, and Tuesday's move hands a win to broadband companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.


The decision will be put to a vote at the agency's Dec. 14 meeting in Washington. It is expected to pass, with Republicans controlling three of the commission's five seats.


Washington Post

This is just further evidence that elected officials are bought by the super pacs and lobbyists.

Should this pass, it will be a stain on the republican controled committee.

Edit: it took me five minutes to call and talk with the office of my congressman, I urge everyone to do the same.
edit on 21-11-2017 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2017 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Well, the FCC plans to get rid of net neutrality soon. This could give more power to already monopoly structured internet providers.

The argument is, that this would give consumers "more choice" in internet providers. Which is ludacris seeing as anyone outside a big city (and many in big cities) only have one viable broadband option.

The idea that net neutrality is "to much government regulation" is a fallacy set up to help get rid of it. The fact is, it just makes an equal playing field and is honestly not very regulatory in nature. It's a simple rule, provide what is paid for.


Federal regulators announced a plan Tuesday that would give Internet providers broad powers to determine what websites and online services their customers can see and use, and at what cost.

The move sets the stage for a crucial vote next month at the Federal Communications Commission that could reshape the entire digital ecosystem. The FCC’s Republican chairman, Ajit Pai, has made undoing the government's net neutrality rules one of his top priorities, and Tuesday's move hands a win to broadband companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.


The decision will be put to a vote at the agency's Dec. 14 meeting in Washington. It is expected to pass, with Republicans controlling three of the commission's five seats.


Washington Post

This is just further evidence that elected officials are bought by the super pacs and lobbyists.

Should this pass, it will be a stain on the republican control of the house and senate.


Two things.

1. It's not congress.

2. Ludacris has yet to make an official statement as far as I know. Nothing on his Twitter.

That is all.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

While you were correct I misread and misspoke,is that all you have to add to the story?

This is the control of information, I hope you're not as apathetic as your comment seemed.

This will effect global markets and information.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I found this:



Check it out, you have to pay extra for things like Netflix or even Steam. Hell, you have to pay extra for pretty much everything. With all that is available on the internet, how can anyone afford that?
edit on 21pmTue, 21 Nov 2017 16:00:16 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Ksihkehe

While you were correct I misread and misspoke,is that all you have to add to the story?

This is the control of information, I hope you're not as apathetic as your comment seemed.

This will effect global markets and information.


This is not the "control of information" any more than a store deciding not to carry books by a certain publisher is. IPs are corporations, they have provided an infrastructure and charge for the use of it, same as with any other privately owned resource or commodity. The fact that the internet has become massively pervasive into our lives is immaterial to the base argument here. The same could be said for cable TV, yet we frequently see pay-to-play in that venue... hell, two years ago we lost AMC here on GCI cable because of a dispute between AMC and the provider.

Net Neutrality is a federal overreach which never should have been passed and needs to be removed ASAP.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Not to mention they can throttle game play, wrecking gaming communities.

I already pay 100+ for internet, plus third party services, which is fine as it's a service I enjoy consuming.

But the fact is, these providers have a stranglehold on markets as it is. Usually there is only one decent provider, this would just give to much power to companies in already uncompetitive markets.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
We must do all we can to preserve Net Neutrality in order for consumers to have free, equal access to information as much as possible, without telecommunication powerhouses regulating who sees what and how much.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I have a question for those who understand this issue -

Does this mean we're going to lose unlimited browsing on mobile again?

Please go easy on me. I just got home. I'm beat and I haven't read the thread yet.

Personally, I don't think there should be many restrictions on or control of the internet. It is information and education. You shouldn't have to pay ridiculous fees to use the library.
edit on 11/21/2017 by Lurker1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
This could be a good thing. Blockchain Internet is on the horizon, and this could be a nice catalyst to push us in that direction.


+12 more 
posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Net Neutrality is a federal overreach which never should have been passed and needs to be removed ASAP.


So your argument is it should be like cable (which is trash) because they're a private company?

The internet isn't TV, and TV in America is overpriced garbage content loaded with commercials.

We already pay for internet, there is no reason we should have to pay more.

And if we do it should be a blanket price more, for added bandwidth ect.

But no companies should have the power of what information we consume on the web. You just don't like it because it's regulation, but it's regulation that promises the consumer doesn't get raped by monopolies.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
There is a war going on by someone (many) who wants to control everything we see and think...1984 was an old story but the plot gets revived with more sophistication weekly...



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Ksihkehe

While you were correct I misread and misspoke,is that all you have to add to the story?

This is the control of information, I hope you're not as apathetic as your comment seemed.

This will effect global markets and information.


I was more poking fun at the Ludacris thing.

I have nothing to add for anybody that followed the battle when this rule was put into place. I'm not sure how much this will impact global markets when the rule just went into place fairly recently. Do you think the information you get isn't censored because the FCC made this rule?

I don't think the sky is falling.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
I found this:



Check it out, you have to pay extra for things like Netflix or even Steam. Hell, you have to pay extra for pretty much everything. With all that is available on the internet, how can anyone afford that?


So you found a made up infographic? Cool. It's fake.

Was your internet like this before? Mine wasn't.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

The regulations got put into place because certain companies were being held hostage to throttling.

So cable companies were throttling Netflix because it's in direct competition with cable, many are ditching the commercial loaded cable for streaming services.

If Netflix pays their bills to have internet speed to distribute, they shouldn't be throttled. That is just an example.

What if Time Warner makes FoxNews.com more expensive since it rivals CNN?

Regulation isn't always bad, especially if it benefits consumers and force ISP's to provide what's paid for, access to the information super highways.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Net Neutrality is a federal overreach which never should have been passed and needs to be removed ASAP.


So your argument is it should be like cable (which is trash) because they're a private company?


That would not be a bad argument, though, would it?

Imagine if cable providers *had* to provide any and every station/channel out there, both present and future ones in 4k, 8k and whatever, to every subscriber, just because it exists.

Imagine of all anyone had to do was to open a station, put any crap on it they wanted, to be assured a place in any available plan by any cable provider.

I assume you normally are able to choose between a number of plans and pick the one that suits you the best. Imagine if you had to chose the plan that included every channel HD, 4K, and 8K, because the FCC had said so.

That would be sort of annoying.
And expensive.


I am all for net neutrality, but there are definitely valid arguments against it.


edit on 21-11-2017 by DupontDeux because: fixing grammar



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: DupontDeux

Again, we're trying to compare two very different markets.

As it stands net neutrality just means they have to provide the service you pay for regardless on how you choose to consume it.

The internet is far different from television. The internet is used for entertainment but also assists the lively hood of most Americans. Whether it's for work or school, you muddy the waters on what we can have access to and it can get bad quick.

The only other thing I could compare it to is electricity. Everyone has a far different need for the amount and diversity on how it's consumed. That's why you pay for electricity and pay based off of consumption.

Imagine if you had to pay extra (on top of consumption) for owning a fridge, or air conditioner.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
You just don't like it because it's regulation, but it's regulation that promises the consumer doesn't get raped by monopolies.


Raped by monopolies? No, I have the choice of choosing an alternative or even walking away. Raped by government? Well now, there's a scene nobody can opt out of once the Genie is out of the bottle.
www.investors.com...


In mid-March, Wheeler told a House panel that he couldn't, in fact, rule out a new Internet fee to help pay for the government's "Universal Service Fund" (USF).

By shoving the Internet into the agency's Title II regulatory scheme — which was set up 80 years ago to regulate the telephone monopoly — Wheeler made it possible to do so.

He said a special board representing federal and state governments was weighing whether to impose that tax. Right now, the USF is paid for by a tax added to long-distance bills.


blogs.reuters.com...

The Great Debate
If the Internet becomes a public utility, you’ll pay more. Here’s why.
By Grover Norquist and Patrick Gleason January 6, 2015
An illustration picture shows logos of Google and Yahoo connected with LAN cables in Berlin

The Federal Communications Commission is in the middle of a high-stakes decision that could raise taxes for close to 90 percent of Americans. The commission is considering whether to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and, in doing so, Washington would trigger new taxes and fees at the state and local level.

The agency would like to make Internet service a public utility, placing broadband under Title II regulation of the Communications Act of 1934. This move would make broadband subject to New Deal-era regulation, and have significant consequences for U.S. taxpayers.

Under this decision to reclassify broadband, Americans would face a host of new state and local taxes and fees that apply to public utilities. These new levies, according to the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), would total $15 billion annually. On average, consumers would pay an additional $67 for landline broadband, and $72 for mobile broadband each year, according to PPI’s calculations, with charges varying from state to state.


I will choose the option that doesn't lead to fiscally being raped, by anyone, everytime and, as we've seen with telephone taxes, that choice is never siding with more government regulations.


+4 more 
posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Ksihkehe

While you were correct I misread and misspoke,is that all you have to add to the story?

This is the control of information, I hope you're not as apathetic as your comment seemed.

This will effect global markets and information.


This is not the "control of information" any more than a store deciding not to carry books by a certain publisher is. IPs are corporations, they have provided an infrastructure and charge for the use of it, same as with any other privately owned resource or commodity. The fact that the internet has become massively pervasive into our lives is immaterial to the base argument here. The same could be said for cable TV, yet we frequently see pay-to-play in that venue... hell, two years ago we lost AMC here on GCI cable because of a dispute between AMC and the provider.

Net Neutrality is a federal overreach which never should have been passed and needs to be removed ASAP.


I hope you don't use many internet sites apart from those approved by your ISP because you may suddenly find you can't get to them any more and those you can will only be viewable through an approved google/facebook whatever proxy that gives you the websites you're allowed to view as part of your package.

What's that you host a business website with an online store that doesn't work through ebay or amazon? Too bad 90% of your customers can no longer see your website because it's not available in any of the packages provided by their ISP's. Maybe there's some websites you enjoy that are hosted in foreign countries. Too bad there's no 'international' packagr provided by your ISP the only ones available are for websites hosted in your own country.

One could go on and on. Millions of people's livelihoods depend on there being an open internet where anyone can access or host anything they want. These rules will make it so this is no longer possible should an ISP so choose to disallow it.

Not to mention that the ability to differentiate between internet traffic types just opens up a ridiculous amount of privacy issues. If you think you have no privacy now, just wait until your internet traffic is monitored and metered by the traffic type.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: DupontDeux

The only other thing I could compare it to is electricity. Everyone has a far different need for the amount and diversity on how it's consumed. That's why you pay for electricity and pay based off of consumption.

Imagine if you had to pay extra (on top of consumption) for owning a fridge, or air conditioner.



Wait, you want to go back to paying for each megabyte consumed rather than paying flat..?

I do not remember that fondly!



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Imagine if you had to pay extra (on top of consumption) for owning a fridge, or air conditioner.


Arguably we already do. The federal government's "energy efficient appliance" and "energy efficient home" tax schemes are essentially "rebates" that keep people who buy energy efficient appliances and make energy efficient improvements ot their homes at the same tax bracket while making those who don't be subject to the new, higher tax rates.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join