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: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2018 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
How much should we bet if Trump was for Net Neutrality there would be a different tune from his supporters?

Gosh.


lol.. Somone get in trump's ear and make it happen.




posted on May, 16 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

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.


To you and everyone else saying this idiotic #...

THE INTERNET IS NOT A #ING INDUSTRY

The internet was not created by private companies, the Internet's infrastructure was not built by private companies. It is a #ing global network of machines linked together.

The internet is not an American thing, the internet is not private property. It never has been and it never should be.

how the #ing internet works


To you and every other government bootlicker, without commercialization of the internet, you fools wouldn't be using it to spread falsities. Rather, you'd be begging the government and military to let you use it instead of begging the government to protect you from the private companies providing it to you.

Commercialization brought the internet to the masses. It also gave us spam
edit on 16-5-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Guyfriday

Yes, you currently pay for bandwidth. Removing net neutrality allows for a company to not only charge you for the bandwidth but also charge additional depending on what you want to do with it.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron




The government is meant to be an extension of us, to help us govern ourselves more easily as we've grown too large to do so without representation.


That is an infantile take on the government, one suited to those who wished to be treated like children. No, the government is meant to defend our freedoms.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Or maybe had it not been commercialized I could get a public IP without a paywall?
You can't prove it either way.

Lol 'government bootlicker'....alright you corporate lapdog.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I support net neutrality. I think not to is counter productive towards human progress.

Information is information. Too much regulation breeds corruption and stifles growth.

I think WIFI should be free for tax payers. I would make high speed internet connections a national standard and accessable to +65% of the continental USA covered.

Get government issued logon credentials when you file your taxes every year. Done.
edit on 5 16 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




Yes, it was. I can't help the fact that you don't understand the concept. The term "net neutrality" has been around since at least 2003, 12 years before the FCC made it law.


The concept of time travel has been around for centuries, but no idiot is saying we have used/known time travel our entire lives.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied




Or maybe had it not been commercialized I could get a public IP without a paywall? You can't prove it either way. Lol 'government bootlicker'....alright you corporate lapdog.


And then you wake up in a sweaty mess, realizing your counterfactual fallacy is the product of your imagination. Get educated.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I support net neutrality. I think not to is counter productive towards human progress.

Information is information. Too much regulation breeds corruption and stifles growth.

I think WIFI should be free for tax payers. I would make high speed internet connections a national standard and accessable to +65% of the continental USA covered.

Get government issued logon credentials when you file your taxes every year. Done.


Currently the US lags behind in infrastructure because the monetary motivation isn't there.
ISPs are happy to sell you garbage



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied




Currently the US lags behind in infrastructure because the monetary motivation isn't there.


Actually, it's the lack of competition.

Why the U.S. Has Fallen Behind in Internet Speed and Affordability



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Here is how you handle that:

Build government owned high speed infrastructure and then force companies in the US to operate at that standard or lease government owned lines and networks.

That would bring in revenue to the government while motivating companies to build to a higher standard so as to avoid expensive lease agreements with the government.

Upgrade or die!

LOL

Well, No. Upgrade in order to own. lol



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The lack of competition....
Monetary motivation, like I initially stated.
And the corporate lapdogs love it because they don't know any better.



a reply to: tadaman

The irony, if that were to happen it would definitely benefit the consumer, but many of them would cry 'but teh governmentz'.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
a reply to: Guyfriday

Yes, you currently pay for bandwidth. Removing net neutrality allows for a company to not only charge you for the bandwidth but also charge additional depending on what you want to do with it.



Under the rule of "Net Neutrality" that we had during the last Administration, nothing was preventing them (the ISP) from doing that either. It's covered under the "Added Services" sections of a billing agreement. All the "Net Neutrality" really did was to label the internet a public utility. ISP, could allow you access to their services but could also charge you for bandwidth, equipment, service fees, and lets not forget line protections. It was all a scam for governmental regulations.

Most of the protection people had during and before the whole "Free Internet" thing were protected under the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights. It wasn't until Obama made an issue out of it, that it became an issue.

Did the "Net Neutrality" stance that Obama take help anyone? Will removing it hurt anyone? Questions that people should answer before they take a stance themselves on this topic.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron




The government is meant to be an extension of us, to help us govern ourselves more easily as we've grown too large to do so without representation.


That is an infantile take on the government, one suited to those who wished to be treated like children. No, the government is meant to defend our freedoms.


No, sir, what you say is infantile.

The government doesn't give me my freedom and therefore it does not defend it. You very much contradict yourself... you say that people wish to be treated like children but you ask your government to defend your freedoms.

I am saying that the government is nothing more than an extension of us, of our will. It is in place only the make it easier for us to enact our will, across our land. OUR will.

What it's become is a perversion.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

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.


To you and everyone else saying this idiotic #...

THE INTERNET IS NOT A #ING INDUSTRY

The internet was not created by private companies, the Internet's infrastructure was not built by private companies. It is a #ing global network of machines linked together.

The internet is not an American thing, the internet is not private property. It never has been and it never should be.

how the #ing internet works


To you and every other government bootlicker, without commercialization of the internet, you fools wouldn't be using it to spread falsities. Rather, you'd be begging the government and military to let you use it instead of begging the government to protect you from the private companies providing it to you.

Commercialization brought the internet to the masses. It also gave us spam


Nope try again. I've been using the internet since at least 1994 when it was provided by my provincial telephone company using infrastructure built by the province, funded by tax money.

I don't understand why people seem to think net neutrality means the government controls the internet. The only thing net neutrality means is that companies that provide internet access are required to treat all data equally.

This is not a bad thing...how the # could that possibly be a bad thing? Do you even actually understand what that means?

That means no matter what you do online, whether it's browse facebook, browse ATS, host a website, watch movies, run a business or #ing any of the millions of things people do online the company providing your internet access must treat all those things the same....which if you had the slightest #ing understanding of the internet you'd realize is only #ing common sense...those things are the same.

As far as internet service providers should be concerned there is no difference between you doing any of those things. Removing net neutrality means they can discriminate between different types of data. Which is utterly #ing retarded. No matter what you do online it's the same #. It's some #ing 1's and 0's being transmitted from one machine to another.
Even this comment I posted was turned into a stream of bytes and sent from my phone to the ATS servers where their server converted it into all this text here. When you refreshed the page the ATS servers sent nothing but a stream of bytes between their servers and whatever you're using.
Treating any of it differently is the stupidest scam that apparently countless idiots seem to believe in because...oh nooes the government....#...for #ing #'s sake....the internet is the greatest #ing innovation in Human communication in history. As far as I'm concerned whatever is going to let me do whatever the # i want online is what I'm going to support...which in this case is net neutrality.
edit on 16/5/2018 by dug88 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/5/2018 by dug88 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/5/2018 by dug88 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/5/2018 by dug88 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
How much should we bet if Trump was for Net Neutrality there would be a different tune from his supporters?

Gosh.


There is. 75% of Republicans support Net Neutrality.

Though only 6% of Republican Senators voted for it.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.


A utility is perfect. You pay for the amount you use. That's what Net Neutrality provides for. Repealing it is akin to saying the water company should be allowed to charge you more for water that comes from your sink than from your shower. Or that your electric company can charge you a different rate based on if your electricity is going to a Samsung vs an LG TV.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
I am noy informed enough to have an opinion on rather this is good or bad.

I do wonder though if this isnt a first step in the government saying other things are like a utility.

I can see republicans that are angry with google, facebook, and twitter now saying they should be able to ensure those "utilities" do not censor conservative views.

It would be interesting to see both sides flip their arguments if it comes to that.


A platform is more along the lines of a device that's connected to a utility... your toilet, sprinkler system, and shower are the platforms that use your water utility. A website uses data, which is the utility.

Net Neutrality is a good thing, unless you also believe your electric company should be able to say that electricity to an LG TV is charged at $0.06/kwh while electricity to a Samsung TV is charged at $0.08/kwh.

The only reason we haven't had that fight yet is because the technology to do so doesn't exist.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No American on this board used the internet pre-2015? Even your own registration date disputes that nonsense.


Neutrality has been in play on the internet since it's creation.

Very few countries do not have Net Neutrality.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The internet was neutral before the FCC adopted net neutrality regulation? Hilarious.


Yes. Can you provide any evidence that it wasn't? Because all evidence points to the fact that it was. In fact, it pretty much has to be, because otherwise the whole thing wouldn't work.

Also, prior to broadband, there was so much competition that the market enforced it. This only started to become an issue once consolidation happened and there was little to no competition.




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join