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.

 

2 million people—and some dead ones—were impersonated in net neutrality comments

page: 2
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Net Neutrality is essentially an argument about free speech. And given the way its gone in the past, i don't see a reason it won't end up with people having more money getting more speech.





posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman

No the point is democracy in this country is now openly corrupt and no one is doing anything about it.


How can you say such a thing? Just look at our democracy in action:




posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

BWAHAHAHA

This is always the GOP policy position..

Give all the power and breaks to the few big corporations who donate the most to them...

Do you think they only feel that way twards the left??

There isn’t really a way to only screw the left legislatively..



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: Southern Guardian

What a sick joke, putting empty, political buzzwords in the mouth of a dead woman.

This would be a good time for Trump's supporters to swallow their pride and speak up to their representatives, if they value alternative Internet content.


im curious why do u think trump supporters are for net nuetrality rollbacks? i can tell u from everyone ive talked to it doesnt matter what side of the aisle your on. vast majority of people ive talked to are against it. i myself am not really against net nuetrality but i do support it since we dont have a free and open market when it comes to isp's. if we had plenty of options to choose from in every city that are all on par bandwidth wise net neutrality rollbacks wouldnt have any impact. all it would do is highlight the bad companies while the good ones would rise to the top who dont charge companies like netflix a fee for the bandwidth they use
edit on 14-12-2017 by TheScale because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2017 by TheScale because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Asktheanimals

BWAHAHAHA

This is always all political parties policy position..

Give all the power and breaks to the few big corporations who donate the most to them...



there now your quote makes sense. its not one sided and if u think so please please start researching all parties going back the last 50 years



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
So I am seeing lots of doom and gloom concerning net neutrality...

Why is a regulation that began in 2015 (final rules put into place) so vital to anything and everything regarding the internet?


I am curious because it seems to me that the bigger problem is the consolidation of ISP into a handful of companies is going to cause more problems due to a lack of competition.

We should be pushing the FED to do their bloody job and prevent these mega corporations in our borders, or maybe I am just silly.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
So I am seeing lots of doom and gloom concerning net neutrality...

Why is a regulation that began in 2015 (final rules put into place) so vital to anything and everything regarding the internet?


I am curious because it seems to me that the bigger problem is the consolidation of ISP into a handful of companies is going to cause more problems due to a lack of competition.

We should be pushing the FED to do their bloody job and prevent these mega corporations in our borders, or maybe I am just silly.


im with you there. the doom and gloom does have some merit though. before 2015 isp's were starting to think about charging companies like netflix, youtube, hulu etc to be a part of their network due to the amount of bandwidth they use as a whole. this in turn would have hiked rates up from such services for the consumer or if they didnt want to pay would have cut the user off from those services altogether. its really quite an odd notion by the isp's to do this considering without those companies providing web based services, you dont really have a need for an isp. on the other hand isp's are having to expand and provide far more resources to provide for such bandwidth hungry services. then again maybe the isp's should change their rates and charge the customer accordingly. so you can go all kinds of ways with this and like you i agree that the biggest problem is the monopolies ISP's have. you break that up and create a robust market with various people offering like for like services then we the consumer will finally win and net neutrality wont matter cause the free market will take care of it



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Anti NN bought and paid for. It's the lowest of the low, this move, not the first time-see Colorado comments by deceased people, is an example of that. I've looked up names, have found multiple spamming of the deceased names attached. This of course is shameful, a class action filing should bring those responsible accountable. Should, because in the Oligarchy they won't be held responsible.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: TheScale

I never said they where for the rollback. I just wanted to imply they were letting it slide or rationalizing it to themselves, because of some kind of siege mentality where they can't admit it is a mistake by the current administration. I just think Trumpist Republicans would listen to their own much more than to liberals who would never vote for them anyway.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I don't know if it's true, but I read that many of the fake posts came out of russia?
guess I can wait and see if RT and Fox News is offered to me at a lower rate than CNN and MSNBC..

unless of course, I find that what is offered at a price that is affordable to me isn't really worth the money that they are asking for it?
if that happens, well, maybe I will just cut it all along with my phone and become a hermit...

now, if the internet providers would offer a free basic service, which provided the online college courses, local news, links for job seekers, and gov't/untilities links..ect...
I probably wouldn't mind paying a little extra for my hulu and such....
but, my guess is that they will up the charges and pocket any additional profits they get, so, no....
believe it or not, I can live without the internet....they would lose a customer.



edit on 15-12-2017 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: TheScale

I never said they where for the rollback. I just wanted to imply they were letting it slide or rationalizing it to themselves, because of some kind of siege mentality where they can't admit it is a mistake by the current administration. I just think Trumpist Republicans would listen to their own much more than to liberals who would never vote for them anyway.


like i said though i dont know much of anyone no matter what side of the aisle who was for rolling it back. those people exist in droves u just have to talk to them



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TheScale

Right, I'm not denying that.



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

I think it is important to understand the following, about this specific case.

First of all, the FCC did not vote to repeal net neutrality. Three people on a five person board did, and two opposed the motion, one of them EXTREMELY vigorously. Ajit Pai, Michael O'Rielly and Brendan Carr, the Republican members on the FCC top table, were the ones who voted to remove net neutrality from the picture.

Ajit Pai, the former Verizon general counsel, has actually been in and out of the government, in one way or another, since getting out of university. One of his first jobs was in the field of mergers, aquisitions, and muddling through cases regarding requests for novel regulatory relief for telecoms companies affected by the 1996 Telecommunications Act. But he has also spent time working directly for telecoms companies, or as parts of legal teams directed on their behalf. Of all the people in the FCC, he is easily the most pro-corporate.

Michael O'Rielly...Well, this guy has been a lackey for various senators, and held various positions in policy advisory and the like... I found a quote from this guy which expresses just how little he cares whether or not people can access the internet, and how little he understands the internet. It goes:

"It is important to note that Internet access is not a necessity in the day-to-day lives of Americans and doesn’t even come close to the threshold to be considered a basic human right... People do a disservice by overstating its relevancy or stature in people’s lives. People can and do live without Internet access, and many lead very successful lives.”

That about sums him up.

Brendan Carr, is probably the most interesting person in this treasonous triad, if only because his career is so utterly boring looking. He was a clerk to a judge for a bit, then took up private practice of law with a firm called Wiley Rein, then all of a sudden he was advising Ajit Pai in matters of law pertaining to communications (despite the fact that Ajit has arguably far more experience in that field than Carr, having worked on more projects as part of legislating bodies and private law firms alike, than Carr has).

These three people ignored the will of the American people, and have been consistent in their lies about what will, and will not be happening as a result of their destruction of Net Neutrality, as well as their reasons for wanting to end it.

Individual states are taking the FCC to court now, as they rightly should, because another thing the FCC has done, is made it impossible for State level legislators to create their own Communications Commissions, to fill the gap left by the FCC. Mignon Clyburn has been VERY vocal about her opposition to the repeal, and her opposition to the way FCC has gone about the process involved with removing it, including failing to provide room for states to step in to regulate on their own behalf. This smacks of corporate espionage of the very darkest kind, and I would advise everyone affected by this decision to write to their representative daily, blow up their e-mail, their Twitter feeds, their Facebook, give them so much mail that they feel like they are being DDoS attacked, absolutely hammer them until they give you the response you are seeking. Get this fixed. The alternative is ghastly.



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
You are missing the point.
The point is; anything enacted during the Obama administration = bad.


you missed one.

Fake accounts only bad when Hillary does it.


Clearly these anti NN accounts were created for the peoples benefit. They know whats better for us.

edit on 041231America/ChicagoTue, 19 Dec 2017 11:04:15 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join