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: 7
59
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


The fact you seem to need net neutrality speaks volumes about the corporate power the ISPs hold in the US. Take their power away instead of trying to regulate.


Demanding ISPs deliver promised bandwidth regardless of where it comes from is hardly regulation.

Everything has some regulation, and minimal regulation to protect consumers is what it's there for.

This whole deregulated everything needs to happen slowly in the states. We need slow transition.




posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
And more comes out in the plan...
www.theverge.com...

Here, they want to allow ISP's to be able to block BitTorrent. With this comes the right to block any packets they cannot recognize. In effect, this would allow ISP's to block any/all encryption, VPN's, and any form of data they don't like. Downloads, streaming content, torrents, emails, ftp, and so on.

Basically, it means ISP's would have the right to look at your data, and then choose to censor it based on what it is. For example, if you're streaming a show from Netflix that your ISP wants you to watch through their content portal (assuming everyone has paid for access here), they can block it and force you to watch it through them.

If you're doing something like distributing open source code through a torrent, or perhaps just a github repository. They have the right to block it.

I know Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are popular here... note that the end of encryption outright kills mining, payment processing, and blockchains. So it would prevent you from ever accessing and using bitcoin.
edit on 22-11-2017 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
And more comes out in the plan...
www.theverge.com...

Here, they want to allow ISP's to be able to block BitTorrent. With this comes the right to block any packets they cannot recognize. In effect, this would allow ISP's to block any/all encryption, VPN's, and any form of data they don't like. Downloads, streaming content, torrents, emails, ftp, and so on.

Basically, it means ISP's would have the right to look at your data, and then choose to censor it based on what it is. For example, if you're streaming a show from Netflix that your ISP wants you to watch through their content portal (assuming everyone has paid for access here), they can block it and force you to watch it through them.

If you're doing something like distributing open source code through a torrent, or perhaps just a github repository. They have the right to block it.

I know Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are popular here... note that the end of encryption outright kills mining, payment processing, and blockchains. So it would prevent you from ever accessing and using bitcoin.


Many linux distributions are distributed solely through bittorrent to reduce server costs. Lots of things that don't involve filesharing use bittorrent as their backends. Secure online shopping, banking and pretty much anything else we do on the internet we don't want hackers to be able to see involves using encryption, even logging in to ATS. Any website you see with the little lock on the corner next to the url uses encrypted security certificates to stop others from intercepting the data sent between their server and your computer.

Lol even video streaming services encrypt their streams so only customers can watch them. This really shows a complete and total lack of understanding about the way the internet even works. I don't even think some of that would be possible to do and have anything remain the way it is. We'll be back to the world of the 90's again.

How can anyone argue for allowing anyone to have that kind of control, government or private company? Might as well live in China you'd probably get to see more of the internet and have more privacy. At least you can use a VPN there.

edit on 22/11/2017 by dug88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Another example would be. Verizon technically owns Yahoo now. For all of their customers they could essentially force you to use Yahoo, and force you to pay extra if you wanted to access Google or any other search engine.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
It's already effected Netflix. I think it was comcast slowed netflix down for all of their customers until netflix paid them more money. Extortion.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Many of us can't take our business elsewhere. I live in a city of 200,000~ and we have one cable internet provider and very crappy dsl.


I live in a small town with around 5000 people living in the city limits.

I live half a mile outside the city limits, and there is one service provider (dsl). The top DL speed available is 3mbps. I tried to get 6 and 9 at one time, but I live too far outside the hub and the service would periodically drop because of the distance.

Satellite is too damned expensive.

Same. Satellite here is very expensive and the service drops constantly. Satellite is also very bad for online gaming as you get packet loss and disconnects.

We have 2 non-sat providers. One we used before and the service was so poor, it wasn't unusual to go a week or more without internet service because of downed lines and other problems. We now use a major provider which used to be great. Now, the complaints about sub-par customer support, constant outages and disconnects, and dropped packets has been swelling. Since we live just outside the zone that supports the uptown connection hub (the boundary line is literally the next street over,) we're forced to be connected to the downtown one which means shoddy net speed. To add to it, the data limits are extremely expensive if you go over. There's no such thing as unlimited internet here.

I don't see anything good about losing net neutrality. Nothing at all.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

They are not both the same. Without Net Neutrality, assuming we can even still access ATS, I will not be able to share a link to a news story with you, because our ISP's will have different rules about what content we can each access.


This is a huge issue for me as well, as I use Google to do research and keep informed on issues. Will it even be possible for me to pay for all the subscriptions to each and every website (they will need to pay the ISP to not be throttled) plus pay the ISP extra for accessing them? Or will I not even have access to some of the websites with relative information on a subject? Will I have access to ATS in the long run?



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   

No, I have the choice of choosing an alternative or even walking away.


This is basically a fallacy. That is.. sure, you can "walk away," but that seems like a sad solution. "Pay our ridiculous prices or no Internet for you!" Internet is no so wide spread and easily available that there are many alternatives. Often is it simply 1 other. Sometimes none. Apartment complexes often make deals with cable providers, so you -have- to pay cable. And sometimes they make a "no dish on your decks" policy. So.. no, it's not cut and dry.. "Ok.. I don't like your options, I'll just go somewhere else."

Often times areas even around cities ISPs may have degraded service options. I was responsible in my last company for setting up networking at construction job sites around a metro area - you'd be quite surprised how limited services still are.

The U.S. is far behind the times when it comes to Internet infrastructure. Many countries have much better Internet availability at greater speeds. So if this comes to pass, your "other" options may be few to none.

Was just watching a video with the previous commissioner of the FCC who thinks this is ridiculous, and says 2/3rds of Americans have no other alternative in the Internet they use. Which based on my work experience, seems just about right.
edit on 22-11-2017 by fleabit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

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.


If it does pass it'll be a HUGE stain on republicans... This will piss off millions of people, this is very 1984 Orwellian. IP corporations pushing it off like Satellite TV is BS!



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Liquesence
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.


And what happens if the government, for example, says "we need to do x to protect the internet from "fake news", and starts shutting things down? Who then decides what fake news is? What if Trump had tried to use NN and the FCC to shut down CNN on the basis of fake news?


That's not what Net Neutrality is.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
People just don't understand how wide-sweeping this will be. If concerned about your own bills - what could change? You phone carrier can create packages for your messaging, social, video, email, cloud.. etc. Your bill will go up. And speeds to some services will be slower. Your Internet at home - bill will go up as you have to add "packages" to get what you had access to before. But.. again, to some sites, it could be slower. If Netflix for example doesn't pay a fee to say, Comcast.. your Netflix could be slower. If they do.. your Netflix bill goes up. They can literally charge you to access certain games you play. MMO you play 15 bucks a months? Naw.. now it's 5 bucks more for gameplay package from your provider.

Throttled Internet to certain sites, higher bills from services you use AND your ISP. Herded to sites your ISP wants you to visit, based on the highest bidder that pays them.

Trump is "big business." He brought in Pai who "worked" for Verizon (sort of how he brought in Alex from big pharma). Are you people too gullible to see this? Trump isn't looking out for you.. an American citizen. He is looking out for big corporations, first and foremost.

This will almost certainly pass in December.. at least 3 FCC voting members (out of 5) have received I'm sure, "bonuses" to ensure it will. So it is up to the people to let Congress know.. that this SUCKS and is not acceptable for the People. Pai seems to think 10Mbs download and 1Mpbs upload is "sufficient." LOL!! The dude is a PAID OFF Trump shill.

The highest bidder will be able to legally allow censorship for those who don't have other Internet options. They could throttle or block access to certain sites. Yay America?

I am stunned anyone supports Pei - the fact that companies like Verizon, Time Warner, Comcast etc. are fully supporting him should be a RED FLAG. There are multiple petitions and moves to impress Congress on the importance of this issue - I highly recommend jumping into the fight, if you enjoy the Internet freedoms you have right now.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
A bit of good news about this whole thing maybe


www.washingtonexaminer.com... 45


WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange tweeted at President Trump, noting that "some form" of net neutrality is important to have as the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission is poised to roll back the Obama-era Internet regulations in a vote next month.

At risk, the notorious secrets-leaker explained, is Trump's ability to effectively communicate with the world via tweets

Dear @realDonaldTrump: 'net neutrality' of some form is important," Assange tweeted Tuesday. "Your opponents control most internet companies. Without neutrality they can make your tweets load slowly, CNN load fast and infest everyone's phones with their ads. Careful."




posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

That's not what Net Neutrality is.


No, but it can be the end result is. If your ISP makes the rules.. and someone pays the ISP to throttle (or cut) access to a site, and that ISP is your only choice.. what happens? You don't think $$$ won't become the primary influence? That's funny.

I fully expect a package to appear that give a 5 dollar credit if you subscribe to the Trump channel (which actually exists).



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Subrosabelow


I don't see anything good about losing net neutrality. Nothing at all.


There is very little good about losing it. Those who say it should be ended because free market or whatever will be just as negatively affected as everyone else.

Because of the need for equal access to information, the internet is, and should remain, a public utility, not a commodity.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit

That's not what Net Neutrality is.


No, but it can be the end result is. If your ISP makes the rules.. and someone pays the ISP to throttle (or cut) access to a site, and that ISP is your only choice.. what happens? You don't think $$$ won't become the primary influence? That's funny.

I fully expect a package to appear that give a 5 dollar credit if you subscribe to the Trump channel (which actually exists).


That's why we need to preserve Net Neutrality. To prevent what you said.

As I have mentioned.
edit on 22-11-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Ugh. They shouldn't turn the USA net into North Korea net. Absolutely revolting. Yeah nk is super restricted but for the USA having had free total net for decades, they cant just put various sites on a pay-for level/tier. Jesus. Talk about censorship via ability to afford. NOT cool.! Rich can afford it all. Rich don't care. Poor people and Middle class care. Can't afford it all.

Good bastardly way to silence those who care.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: imitator

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

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.


If it does pass it'll be a HUGE stain on republicans... This will piss off millions of people, this is very 1984 Orwellian. IP corporations pushing it off like Satellite TV is BS!



Absolutely, this will be the republicans obamacare.

The DNC could drag the Pelosi corpse as their candidate and they will win, after the people realize how Fd their internet was destroyed by the republicans.

Not to mention after net neutrality principles are killed the MSM and corporations will run the Internet like if CNN had control of it. You will only be able to access sites that are controlled, monitored , and remind you how awesome Pelosi and Hillary are.








edit on 561130America/ChicagoWed, 22 Nov 2017 18:56:24 -0600000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
This will mean that the percentage of Americans that are dumb, ignorant, apathetic or selfish will grow even larger because only corporate approved information will be available. The whole internet will be like Fox news- fake conservative, and never challenging anyone to think beyond their indoctrination.

Imagine if the web were as bland as a corporate workplace, like the one I have to suffer through, no thanks.




top topics



 
59
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join