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: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
cool. So this part seems relevant to our discussion in regards to the publicly broadcast fears.

Interconnectedness. Since communications services exhibit network effects and positive externalities, new entrants would face barriers to entry if they could not interconnect their networks with those of the incumbent carriers. Thus, another key provision of the 1996 Act sets obligations for incumbent carriers and new entrants to interconnect their networks with one another, imposing additional requirements on the incumbents because they might desire to restrict competitive entry by denying such interconnection or by setting terms, conditions, and rates that could undermine the ability of the new entrants to compete.[9]

Its related, but does not deal directly with the specific issue of pay to play bandwidth. Its a good start though. Im going to have to dissect the legalese of the actual text to see what we all default back too.

But FWIW, everybody already pays taxes on their internet bill, and are still dealing with commercials for free content from the Dino medias entry apps into streaming. So it seems that would remain the same.
edit on 12-17-2017 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

You didn't provide a link but that external quote would seem to apply to Title II. Please correct me if I'm wrong.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

haha...



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
It was under the framework column on the wiki article. I threw it in there. That is a summary of the writers interpretation though. I have to get into the daggon thing to see what it actually says.
SO I found that on the FCC website, but it is 128 pages and is going to take me some time to grasp in ts entirety, or at least insofar as to how it relates to the sky is falling of NN repeal.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry
It would be more meaningful and easier to understand to refer to the amended 1934 Act. That puts it all on one place for you.

To summarize, however, what the FCC has done is to declare that ISPs (whether or not they provide infrastructure) are considered to be Information Services (under Title I) rather than Common Carriers. This relieves them of the conditions of Title II.
edit on 12/17/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
well Title II of the 1996 ACT is Broadcast Services and Title III is Cable services. I assume it looks different in the amended 1934 act? I got to pull that up too.

1934 also on the FCC website (.pdf will launch)

(20) I
NFORMATION SERVICE
.--The
term ''information service'' means the offering of
a
capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing,
or
making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing,
but
does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation
of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.

Could that be interpreted as ISP is not included?? It sounds like it describes an ISP.
edit on 12-17-2017 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Title II of 1996 amendends Title II of 1934 which is:
TITLE II--COMMON CARRIERS



Could that be interpreted as ISP is not included?? It sounds like it describes an ISP
Does it sound like a company which installs and maintains internet cable systems? Does it sound like a company which installs and maintains telephone systems?

edit on 12/17/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
oh man its late, there is just under 500 pages of text to study between these two. This is the last thing I found in 1934 before I go to bed.

SEC. 202. [47 U.S.C. 202] DISCRIMINATION AND PREFERENCES.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or
unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations,
facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly
or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or
unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or
locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any
undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
(b) Charges or services, whenever referred to in this Act, include charges
for, or services in connection with, the use of common carrier lines of
communication, whether derived from wire or radio facilities, in chain broadcasting
or incidental to radio communication of any kind.
(c) Any carrier who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall
forfeit to the United States the sum of $6,000 for each such offense and $300 for
each and every day of the continuance of such offense.

And based on how I read it worded, yes. Internet cable and telephone systems installed and maintained seems synonymous with capability for the management, control or operation of a telecomm. system or service. This was good, lets pick this up later and hope others follow these leads to help us all find the truth.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: musicismagic
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.


US ISP:s companies seem to not be able to create great infrastructure for a good prices so they need to have monopoly on the line to be able to pull enough money to create a worse internet than companies all over the world can for less money. US is going anti free market and competition again.
edit on 17-12-2017 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Or:
The urge to control everything.
Absolute power.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth

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.

My favorite part about that is paying for all the channels I don't ever watch, plus the ads (that I can mute but no longer skip).

In the year 2033, computers will be morphed back into TV's. My mouse and keyboard will change back to a remote and access on screen 'menus'. I can 'navigate' and click 'okay' to turn 'features' on and off.

The two way internet will become a thing of the past, emoticon messages will replace telephones and emails. They already do to a certain degree. Have you noticed? Some people just text a line of smiley faces, little hearts and 'thumbs up' as a 'text'.

Across the bottom of "Future Tube" will be scrolling news, weather and stock reports with a permanent small screen running 24/7 commericial ads in the corner. If you really want you can access 'live streams' of some comments section below a news report and read rich people circle jerking each other off about the newest toyota or multi function tv sets that are out just in time for christmas.

Excuse me while I turn away, I think I'm going to be sick.
edit on 17-12-2017 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

A perspective of how things will grow and change is best understood by reflecting on the past.

For instance, we used to go to rock concerts in the late 70s and early 80s . You could bring in coolers filled with food and liquor. Now you can't bring anything in, and concessions like a cup of beer cost a fortune.

When cable tv first came out it was commercial free, 24 hour broadcast (the first time for that) and showed unedited films.

Now its all commercialized, the fees are based on tiered packages, the ads are ruthless. Unless you pay for premium packages costing hundreds of dollars a month you are limited to basic service run by conglomerate, commercial driven , corporations.

This has always been a slow encroachment process, taking over a popular venue and slowly strangling it to their fee driven, censored, monopolistic greed.
edit on 17-12-2017 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   
If you changed the spelling. It sounds like Devil-ution.

The end must be close at hand.

Yikes.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
For the last few days, I've been wondering how this will affect my world. For example, what this would do to my ability to work from home. When at home, I use a company VPN to be able to get to company resources. When I go to the open internet, I'm seen as coming from the city where the company ISP connection is. What if that connection is outside the US where the new rules do not apply? Maybe someone here knows enough about Internet routing and firewalls but I would guess that my home ISP won't be able to filter the content. Unless of course they deliberately down-grade all traffic they don't recognize.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

How, I don't favor government or corporate interference in regards to the internet. That's a very, very slippery slope in regards to the "commoners."



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Daalder
Or:
The urge to control everything.
Absolute power.


Precisely.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

You can rest assured that if what I keep hearing is the plan/ idea, it won't be beneficial to you.
edit on 17-12-2017 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I completely agree. What gets me is that there's a significant portion of the population that continuously searches for excuses to condone it.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
a reply to: intrptr

I completely agree. What gets me is that there's a significant portion of the population that continuously searches for excuses to condone it.


Or pushing an agenda, whichever.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 09:06 PM
link   
none of you have yet to point to which parts of the Telecom act of 1996 or aformentioned portion of the 1934 Communication act would validate the fear mongering your all repeating from, you guessed it, the MSM.

I actually referenced several parts from it that actually somewhat dissuades the speculation. In fact it is the first parts of this page.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join