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.

 

The Devolution Of The Internet And Control Of Information

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   
We all know at this point that the FCC has decided to repeal net neutrality. It is a point of conversation by everyone from conspiracy "theorist" to "gamers."

Neutrality and gamers

What the repeal means for you

The implications of all of this is rather disturbing. It's not what has been announced that will happen that's concerning, but what is likely. So, exactly what's likely?

Given my understanding, which is admittedly as limited as anyone else's, the repeal essentially gives corporations such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast the "right" to tack on extra costs for accessing sites unapproved by those companies. In other words, think about how your cable or DirecTV bill is set up. They basically have "packages." You get "basic" plans where mainstream media is easily accessible for a relatively cheap fee. However, if you want more in depth channels such as History Channel, Discovery, Destination America, et cetera, you have to pay exorbitant fees. From my understanding, the internet under the new FCC guidelines will operate under a similar procedure.

You want alternative news? Buy this "bundle." You want to YouTube? Buy this "bundle." You want ATS? Buy this "bundle." So on and so forth.

Keep in mind, these fees will be added to whatever you're paying for your internet service now. What you're paying now will cover access to say MSNBC, FOX, NBC,ABC, et cetera, but you'll have to pay extra if you want to access something like, say, Drudge, Coast to coast, ATS or the like.

At it's basic root, this is nothing less than control of information. It's basically a way to sway people to partake of nothing but mainstream propaganda. After all, if the majority of the masses are only exposed to that they're none the wiser.


edit on 16-12-2017 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

Yep, only the more 'Affluent' will be able to afford all the channels, skip ads and comment.

And they will say the same things the Matrix is sayin'...

"Really Good Noodles"

Vimeo



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

Yep, only the more 'Affluent' will be able to afford all the channels, skip ads and comment.

And they will say the same things the Matrix is sayin'...

"Really Good Noodles"

Vimeo



That's pretty much what it sounded like to me. Oh, they'll make it look "good" by saying, "Well, you still get all of such and such with the basic fee you're currently paying." The problem is going to be that when examined all you're going to be getting is mainstream media tripe under your "basic" plan.


(post by Terminal1 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   
well heres the real deal with that. your isp has to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure required for the internet to work. every bit of bandwidth requires processing power which is maintained by the isp in most cases. streaming services have been found to account for about 65% of all bandwidth usage over the internet. so these few companies are using 65% of the resources of which the isp has paid for and maintained. shouldnt these services that require vasts amounts of computing power and costs be shared between the isp and services like that if it were fair? as it stands we the customer are the ones footing the bill for every site and business out their that uses the infrastructure to sell a service for a profit cause the isp passes that cost onto us.

now lets say those services which are using massive bandwidth were also responsible for part of the costs wed see our bill to the isp go down and if your a netflix customer your bill would go up to reflect the new costs. this is imo a good thing since the people using such services are now the ones paying for the costs of such things instead of it being equally shared across the board whether u use such services or not.

the problem with the rollback is that we dont have a robust open market when it comes to isp's. yeah theres usually choices but none of them are on par with each other. since we dont have a free market competing it allows for horrible business practices to take place. so while net neutrality imo was a terrible law, it had a place in our current system and since we havent found a solution for that problem rolling it back wasnt the most wise choice imo.

one good thing to take away from this is most people are not happy about this rollback and so far people have been quite vocal so i think all this rollback will do is lead us towards some legislation that actually makes sense and hopefully gives us the people abit more of a stake in the infrastructure that is the internet. of course people do get distracted easily these days and move from one hot topic to the next



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Very well described how they likely will abuse this.

This is in line with the philosophy of the political scoundrels who are in power now

And what is worse is that this is happening at the height of the consolidation of the powerful media conglomerates that will make the only remedy to this, which is competition, impossible.

edit on 16-12-2017 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   
What happened before Network Neutrality?

Oh gee, there were standard business laws that took care of the shady tactics by the big guys.

If anything, Network Neutrality just made what they were doing legal if they put it in 1pt font on the last page of a contract.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mike27
What happened before Network Neutrality?.


I keep hearing this "argument" bannied about. Here's the problem with this "argument."

Net neutrality was not put into place until the mega-corporations like AT&T and Verizon put forth a plan to do exactly what I am talking about. That being the case, what difference does it make what it was like before when they made clear what their future plans were?

So, now that it's back to the way it was before, you think these corporations are just going to forget about their plans to do what they intended to do before? Doubtful.
edit on 16-12-2017 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Would say there's rough times ahead for online gaming, which actually may be the death of it for the most part and with gaming as a whole. It would cost too much as a hobby if people need packages for it whether separate or in one package depending on what they play which may or may not have an additional gig throttle. Many would move on, others would stop developing and hosting/running online games due to that.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
The majority of the internet is just free sites being paid by ad revenue.


It's already teetering on being more expensive than it's worth, especially to poor people.
$1200+ usd a year to use a cable line.


I think ISPs would see a mass exodus of users jacking with the flow, it would be a bad biz move, It will probably be passed to huge content streamers and pass down through their subscription fees.


Bypassing the scammy isps with house to house wifi giving free internet for all after the hardware purchase could solve our isps middle-man milking problems if they want to keep sucking so bad.




posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: dreamingawake

Yeah, see, I am not really an online/multiplayer gamer... I am primarily a single player gamer, so I don't see it affecting my gaming habits much, but I do see how people who play primarily multiplayer games would be concerned.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Mike27

Links laid out well by the following member's post in the main thread : www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7




$1200+ usd a year to use a cable line.

Are you including TV in that? Because it seems pretty steep.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I was wondering the same. Lol



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Mandroid7




$1200+ usd a year to use a cable line.

Are you including TV in that? Because it seems pretty steep.


youd be surprised how the packages work in some areas. its cheaper for me to get internet, tv, and phone then to just get any one of them by itself minus the phone. i really didnt even want a phone since i use my cel phone but it made the deal cheaper. in my area if u want comcast, directv, or at&t your paying about $110 a month with a promotional deal in some cases for a base plan.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheScale

Yes, I know. But that doesn't mean your internet connection costs $100/mnth.
I could get internet for about $40.
edit on 12/16/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheScale

Yes, I know. But that doesn't mean your internet connection costs $100/mnth.
I could get internet for about $40.


no you dont understand. if i wanted to just have internet from comcast my bill goes from $108 to $111. now i could go to other companies that arent as bad like verizon but they throttle your net after 25 gigs every month and then your stuck at 600kbps. so its not a like for like service. there is no competitor in my area for comcast other then one company but u have to live on the right street in the right part of town to get service from them. its not like i live in some remote place either im in the capitol of california.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TheScale

Yeah, that's true. It's odd how the math on some of it works out.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I pay about 42 USD a month for internet and use all I want and download all I want here in Japan. With very high speed too.
Americans are way behind times and you worry about this game called net neutrality . Come on folks, wake up. It only boils down to 2 things, one taxes are to be collected upon purchases and share holders get good returns on their investments.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheScale




if i wanted to just have internet from comcast my bill goes from $108 to $111.

Well that sucks. I have a choice of providers, one of which happens to be my TV cable provider. And I won't give up my phone landline because it works when the power goes out.

See what a local monopoly can do? I don't think the FCC's decision is going to help your situation. At all.
edit on 12/16/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join