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.

 

This net neutrality move seems a good thing.

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Have fun paying more for your internet then because it about to get alot more expensive for you over there .
And get used to your content being restricted and censored .


How was it restricted before NN?




posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: interupt42

At least with the government, the people can vote and have some kind of say.


So Trump promised to get rid of NN, then he was elected.

The people had their say.

Nuff said.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: JanAmosComenius

That sounds great. So here's my question-and I am not up on all this-who financed these community networks?

Are there no big, corporate networks that you have to deal with? If there are, do you have to fight them as well? How restrictive are the bureaucracies you are fighting?

So if your fighting the EU and gov't bureaucracies, then would it be easier to achieve your goals without Gov't restrictions?



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker


Here's where I don't follow with that logic. There will always be someone who will offer more and better service at a better price...if it's still profitable. Heck, that's how cable TV and the net got started.

Thats hardly true, what results is monopolistic control of information, as usual. The PTB hate that the internet has obsoleted their control of the information airwaves. We have a say... we can disagree, expose their lies.

Thing is I remember what it was like before the internet. What they want is a return to the dark ages of top down, one way dissemination of information, by TV radio and newspapers.


Fair enough. Then tell me why giving control of the net to the UN improves it? Haven't we seen restrictions already under the current system?



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker


Here's where I don't follow with that logic. There will always be someone who will offer more and better service at a better price...if it's still profitable. Heck, that's how cable TV and the net got started.

Thats hardly true, what results is monopolistic control of information, as usual. The PTB hate that the internet has obsoleted their control of the information airwaves. We have a say... we can disagree, expose their lies.

Thing is I remember what it was like before the internet. What they want is a return to the dark ages of top down, one way dissemination of information, by TV radio and newspapers.


Fair enough. Then tell me why giving control of the net to the UN improves it? Haven't we seen restrictions already under the current system?

Un doesn't control anything. They are a sounding board. Promottng invasion and sanctions like they were handing out candy and looking the other way when it comes to Crimes against Humanity, the real reason the organization was founded after WWII.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI




However, there is a difference. One has the means and abilities to write laws, enforce as well as apply fines. They also have that whole court thing as well.


Agreed to a point. However, the politicians are enslaved to the lobbyist to get elected and re-elected. They no longer hold the power as they need the lobbyist to survive.

You should watch some of the larry lessig (professor of harvard law) interviews and ted talk about how the lobbyist pretty much already controls the candidates before you even hear about them.

ted talk

really interesting interview with the former top republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff




posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990
Internet was invented in USA and US citizens should have the best connection on Planet.

Wrap it in freedom mumbojumbo and still it is what it is: below average connection.

Something rotten in kingdom of democracy and freedom.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

That's a lot to chew on, LOL.

Off the top, and I'm ignorant on the subject...learning though.

All I can do is relate this to other fields/industries. We broke down Ma Bell. We ended up with a whole bunch of 'Ma Bells'.

The very companies you cite, Netflix, Amazon, google, all benefit from this move. Yes? All support the left. Yes?
I can't think with that in the context your post. It just doesn't add up! Leaves me confused!

What I seem to get, in general, is the idea of zero control, complete freedom and zero to little cost. That somehow I should have the right to the fastest car, say a Corvette ZR-1 and it shouldn't be any more expensive than a Honda Accord. Is that an accurate analogy?

In my simplistic view of this, everything is controlled, everything has a price to pay in one form or another. I can pine for the days of no speed limits in Montana all I want, it isn't happening.

I pose this to you, why should it be a 'right'? (Especially when there's no such thing, beyond rhetoric and theoretical documents that are ignored more and more by our gov't as convenience dictates?) Our gov't already ignores laws as they choose, from wars to killing American citizens to ignoring immigration laws...the list goes on. Every right we have is infringed on. Yes?

All I see is one less player. Rightfully so.The UN has been removed from the game. The UN. One less vested interest....gone. An evil one. An anti-American one.

We can't even agree on how to cover ourselves medically! What was the likelihood that we would reach consensus on a balance between freedom for corporations and enough control that no one group dominates. Be it corporate, gov't or agenda?

None. The UN is out. Is there a potential price to just scraping Obama's sell-out? Ok, you've pointed some out.

That doesn't mean further legislation down the road cannot improve things.

The very companies you cited and bragged that became huge successes as a result of a completely free net are the very ones that will take control.

Seems to me no matter what direction this goes someone ends up on top of the 'food chain'.

There's no more free land. No more homesteading. No more hunt, fish as you will. Cut trees as you will. Build as you will. Don't tell me they didn't think it was their 'right' in the day either!

I'm getting up there in years. All I can say is deal with it. Anticipate the next move, maybe you'll be the next 'huge success'.

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

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

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



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: JanAmosComenius

That sounds great. So here's my question-and I am not up on all this-who financed these community networks?

Are there no big, corporate networks that you have to deal with? If there are, do you have to fight them as well? How restrictive are the bureaucracies you are fighting?

So if your fighting the EU and gov't bureaucracies, then would it be easier to achieve your goals without Gov't restrictions?





It is complex question and simply answer is: It is continuous struggle with namely ignorance among various bureaucracies ... not only governmental, corporations are also numb as log.

My personal world view is anarchism but in current situation I see state institutions as legitimate tool against corporate oppression.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker
The voters will fix this with votes. Republicans greatly underestimated the reaction the public will have if the scenarios described in this thread happen.

Mix it with Jeff sessions war on medical Marijuana and the midterms will make some big changes to congress.

Which is not a great thing for fiscal conservatives.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Ameilia

Thats not how it works.

Ignore Obama, and pay attention. Since communications technology of any kind came into the public awareness, including the telegram system and the telephone system, they were considered common carriers under United States law, meaning that they most closely resemble public utilities, and were expressly forbidden to give preferential treatment to one correspondents messages, or one persons phone calls, over another persons, for any reason. The FCC was given responsibility to regulate the systems by which those technologies were operated by the companies which owned them, to ensure fair pricing, and access to those systems for those who needed them.

The angle the FCC approach the internet from, largely speaking, is based on its original purpose, of making sure that access to communications technology is not discriminatory, that people cannot buy preferential treatment from suppliers by any means, and to make sure that service users are not prevented from accessing certain correspondents and services, just because their ISP wants to corner the market in some way.

Obama has NOTHING to do with the rules being what they are, because they were exactly as they were for YEARS AND YEARS before he was anything to do with anything. The only people who have ever challenged the right of the FCC to regulate the ISPs, are the Republicans and the ISPs themselves. Thats it. Thats all. Obama was trying to return things to how they were BEFORE others started interfering on the behalf of companies who had paid them an awful lot of money to shill for them in congress and elsewhere, not to mention bought an industry figures place as top man in the FCC!



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker


I used to work for Bell Atlantic/Verizon.

I remember not being able to lower package prices because we had to allow other Companies to have a fair chance to enter the market. That’s when all prices went up with the competition. I know people who are paying $200 a month for cable/landline/internet and their service is always going out and they complain there is nothing good on tv. I live in the NE, so some people have a couple of options. Comcast/Verizon (if your area has the fiberoptic and not hostage to trunks and CO.

Bottom line is this, no company wants to lose their customer base.

I have Verizon and would NEVER change.




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



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

There is no BEFORE!

Net Neutrality existed since the days of the telegram for crying out loud!



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Have fun paying more for your internet then because it about to get alot more expensive for you over there .
And get used to your content being restricted and censored .


It's already getting restricted and censured. I, for one, am willing to pay more if the controllers are American rather than a NWO agenda.

Apparently, many aren't.

No wonder those people are winning. For a few bucks saved you'd give control to outside and covert interests.

So, yes, I AM prepared to 'pay more'. It's worth it.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Kettu


Well, we do have Elon Musk, but I think he's a time traveler or something and didn't bring enough money back in time with him.

That made me LOL. I knew he had to have come from someplace other than our current Earth.

Now if the Terminator movie series is correct, then only organic matter can pass through time. At least on the outside. So guess where all that money would have to been stuffed. As soon as he materialized he'd have to find a bathroom really quickly.



-dex



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Have fun paying more for your internet then because it about to get alot more expensive for you over there .
And get used to your content being restricted and censored .


It's already getting restricted and censured. I, for one, am willing to pay more if the controllers are American rather than a NWO agenda.

Apparently, many aren't.

No wonder those people are winning. For a few bucks saved you'd give control to outside and covert interests.

So, yes, I AM prepared to 'pay more'. It's worth it.


Lay off the Alex Jones. That isn't even close to reality.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Man, why do I get the feeling that if the internet wasn't like 90 percent more or less free porn no one would really give a damn about this.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ameilia

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Have fun paying more for your internet then because it about to get alot more expensive for you over there .
And get used to your content being restricted and censored .


Net Neutrality wasn't a thing before 2015.

And now it's not a thing again.

If we weren't censored and throttled before 2015, why should be now? Exactly what differences have occurred pre-2015 Net Neutrality and post 2015 Net Neutrality that were are now going to lose due to its being repealed?


That's not true at all.

There may have been less of a NEED for net Neutrality prior to 2015, but at that time internet providers began plans to roll out these tiered plans and throttling, but the Net Neutrality act prevented it. Without Net Neutrality, the internet providers are again free to do what they were trying to do in 2015.

That is to say, the internet was defacto neutral in its history prior to 2015, but when plans were in the works to stop that neutrality, the Net Neutrality was enacted to keep the internet just like it has always been.


edit on 15/12/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: KTemplar
a reply to: nwtrucker


I used to work for Bell Atlantic/Verizon.

I remember not being able to lower package prices because we had to allow other Companies to have a fair chance to enter the market. That’s when all prices went up with the competition. I know people who are paying $200 a month for cable/landline/internet and their service is always going out and they complain there is nothing good on tv. I live in the NE, so some people have a couple of options. Comcast/Verizon (if your area has the fiberoptic and not hostage to trunks and CO.

Bottom line is this, no company wants to lose their customer base.

I have Verizon and would NEVER change.





Fair enough. I miss your point though. Are you saying that eventually someone wouldn't come in at a lower price?

Perhaps that restriction was needed at that time. Not all rules and regulation-designed to fix an issue-remain valid from there on out. Once at least a semblance of competition has been attained, that rule/regulation becomes a hindrance.

Let me pose this thought to you. isn't it in a completely free environment that the U.S. economy grew to be the greatest in the world? That new fields, inventions and technologies that. by definition, hadn't become 'regulated' yet, was how our great corporations developed?

Freedom, by definition, opens the door to not only unrestrained creativity, it open the door to stupidity, greed and every aberration thought of by man. We have had plenty of both.

I would put up with the latter-assuming potential correction later on-to ensue the former.

Take the shackles off and let's see where this goes.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 08:19 AM
link   
This will effect consumer prices of many products.

Nearly every business uses the Internet.

For instance I am a part owner of a mobile inspection company who does fleet vehicles. I rely on hot spots for the equipment. They use a bit of data. My prices will have to go up and I can't be throttled so I need top tier internet.




top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join