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.

 

Senate barely passes resolution to restore net neutrality

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   


A spirited campaign by Democratic lawmakers to save net neutrality has passed the Senate, moving one step closer toward forestalling its scheduled demise on June 11th. The vote was predictably close along party lines: In addition to every Democrat supporting the legislation, the final 52-47 tally featured three Republican legislators, Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and John Kennedy (R-LA), voting in favor of the bill.

"We don't let water companies or phone companies discriminate against customers, we don't restrict access to freeways deciding you can use them and you can't," Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) said before the official vote. "Are you on the side of large internet companies, or are you on the side of American families?

Senate barely passes resolution to restore net neutrality

There's hope yet. Maybe Trump will come to his senses for once? Protection of the internet and freedom to use it all the same without big business dictating. Why Net Neutrality is important? More protections for new start ups, a freer internet economy, protected from monopolies and cost, affordability. We should strive to make access to the internet for as many as possible. We're all for freedom of information, freedom of speech and the internet is an important body for this. Allowing corporations to dictate what websites should be accessed more freely is out of question. How anybody can think this is acceptable is beyond me.

Kudos to the Senate.



+1 more 
posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

VETO PLEASE!



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

“Net neutrality” was always a euphemism for government-enforced conformity.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Southern Guardian

“Net neutrality” was always a euphemism for government-enforced conformity.


How?

Isn't it much more of "equality to all data"? How could that be seen as bad, besides from Comcast et al?



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Southern Guardian

VETO PLEASE!


Quoted for sanity.

Net Neutrality... I don't think the Dems understand that those words don't mean what they think they mean...

Who am I kidding... of course they do.

Veto it is!



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Southern Guardian

“Net neutrality” was always a euphemism for government-enforced conformity.


How?

Isn't it much more of "equality to all data"? How could that be seen as bad, besides from Comcast et al?


It’s the government determining how companies should operate, sticking its fingers in industries where it doesn’t belong.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

They did a good thing for once. Barring known malicious ones, it should be the case that a packet is a packet is a packet. We do not need yet one more thing that further enriches the already wealthy at the cost of everybody else.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   
How much should we bet if Trump was for Net Neutrality there would be a different tune from his supporters?

Gosh.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Yay, lets pay per service - should the book of faces be free or should it cost more than your electricity?
Or maybe you want to see Netflix - that could cost more bc of your ISP who wants to have a share of Netflix' income.

Or maybe you just need a pizza-delivery. If you use the delivery-service who paid your ISP $$$ you might access their website for free.

Who knows? Bc bytes aren't bytes anymore. Without Net Neutrality, they are commodities, sold by demand and supply, prices driven by whatever your ISP wants to earn from you.

See Portugal. The people aren't happy with that.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   
that was embarrassing never mind
edit on 16-5-2018 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

How about this, find me the exact lines in a legally binding text that actually says what you and those behind you state. What line in the telecom act from the 1990's which was a revisions of one from the thirties I think, guarantees us the doom and gloom the Net Neutrality folks are attempting to sell us?? Do you have any specific lines of text from any legally binding documents that support the fear chant the media is trying to sell us?

a reply to: ManFromEurope
so you seem to be quite sure, could you provide us with the lines of text from legally binding documents that support these wild accusations of yours??

do not paraphrase, we need the actual texts from these documents that support these claims.
edit on 5-16-2018 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Like.. that thing with Trump who wants European companies to stop doing deals with Iran? I am not pushing some goalposts, but there is no "government-free"-trade anywhere.

And if a government tells all ISPs to keep their prices per byte regardless of used service, just as a byte is a byte is a byte, this should be in the best interest of ALL users of the internet.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Usually I'd agree with you if Comcast charter and others weren't government protected monopolies.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The net should be considered a utility, you shouldn't be able to block hosts and extort users. Same as what happened to the phone companies and electricity.


Besides the public paid for a great deal of the foundation.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Like.. that thing with Trump who wants European companies to stop doing deals with Iran? I am not pushing some goalposts, but there is no "government-free"-trade anywhere.

And if a government tells all ISPs to keep their prices per byte regardless of used service, just as a byte is a byte is a byte, this should be in the best interest of ALL users of the internet


I don’t find statism to be much of an argument anymore. If you do not like the service, find another one.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Because there are two sides to every coin...Controlling the content of the internet like the gov't will do is the worse thing that could happen...I don't think its corporations that are dictating what sites I can visit...



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The net should be considered a utility, you shouldn't be able to block hosts and extort users. Same as what happened to the phone companies and electricity.


Besides the public paid for a great deal of the foundation.


Perhaps they shouldn’t, but that is no argument that you should therefor run to the government to seek to immediately restrict someone’s freedom.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   
this is just an effort to distract from the recent online movement pushing for an Internet Bill Of Rights or IBOR.
its still being developed but the sort of concerns people have about net neutrality are the sort of things this movement seeks to solve.

IBOR is backed by Q and thus Trump.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Iscool
ok but where in these legally binding texts are you reading about government control and picking and choosing which content to prioritize?? For the last two years, whenever I decide to chime in, the only person that even came close to answering this was Phage, but he only ended up citing a paragraph that defines the companies that simply connect you to the infrastructure as separate from the entities that actually deliver the signal.

Sometimes in some markets, they are different entities. Sometimes, it is the same company. Our debate revolved around that specific paragraph in the 90's telecom act. I wish I could find it, it was a really good back and forth that actually looked at the legal documents and the writing within it, and not wild baseless claims and sound byte from Pundits on TV and the same media we all distrusted until they started hating Trump publicly.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
..

a reply to: ManFromEurope
so you seem to be quite sure, could you provide us with the lines of text from legally binding documents that support these wild accusations of yours??

do not paraphrase, we need the actual texts from these documents that support these claims.


Thats easy enough, and I do not think that you have any power over me to dictate this onto me.
But to give you something to read: FCC-CIRC1712-04 Restoring Internet Freedom

I have to quote some important parts as I will not publish and explain the whole of this thing.



Restore the classification of broadband Internet access service as an “information service”

Meaning that bytes aren't just bytes anymore, but of different value depending of the "information service value".


First, we end utility-style regulation of the Internet in favor of the market-based policies necessary to preserve the future of Internet freedom.

So... Bytes aren*t just bytes, just like water out of your faucet wouldn't just be water anymore, but PuRE-WATER Ultimate 100% (which costs a lot more). This comparison leaves out a lot of facets, as you could not get any other water, but water is water - and bytes should be bytes to your ISP, not of differing value and costs.

More?




top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join