It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Newest Threat to the Internet Diversity

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 08:35 AM

FCC Chief: AT&T Can Limit Net Bandwidth

FCC Chief Kevin Martin yesterday gave his support to AT&T and other telcos who want to be able to limit bandwidth to sites like Google, unless those sites pay extortion fees. Martin made it clear in a speech yesterday that he supports such a a "tiered" Internet.

Martin told attendees at the TelecomNext show that telcos should be allowed to charge web sites whatever they want if those sites want adequate bandwidth.


By siding with telcos who want to be able to offer adequate bandwidth to sites that pay up, and to limit bandwidth to sites that don't, he'll help kill off new sites that can't afford to fork over the money.


Here is the original article the BLOG is based upon:

Martin Says FCC Has Authority To Enforce Net Neutrality

If I'm reading this right, something like this could even hurt sites like ATS!

[edit on 24-3-2006 by loam]

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:39 PM
I don't see any threat to internet diversity in the article, or any threat to net neutrality either. All I saw him say was that if you use more bandwidth you will have to pay more and that's the way it is now.

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:49 PM
I disagree what I see is more control of who can afford to have their business in the INTERNET and who can not.

This looks to me like a way to monopolized the INTERNET.

Monopolizing will get rid of the unwanted site and be replace by more selected ones.

Martin told attendees at the TelecomNext show that telcos should be allowed to charge web sites whatever they want if those sites want adequate bandwidth.

Without limitation will come exploitation and control.

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:12 PM

I've about had it with Big Business. They're constantly thinking of new ways to screw people over and they don't give a damn how ridiculous their schemes are.

I read another article about my electric bill last month. We pay a $1.00 for every deadbeat who refuses to pay. I'm not whining about Grandma on her fixed income. I'm happy to pay that and would pay more for her. I'm whining about the people who just don't pay their damn bills.

I don't like paying for people who abuse the ER either. Again, I have no say in the matter.

There are a lot of examples of this corporate abuse, which I can't think of at the moment due to pre-Alzheimer's. This Internet thing is yet another.

I guess I'm wondering what it's going to take before American citizens, between Big Business and Big Brother, decide to revolt. Remember one of Thomas Jefferson's most famous quotes (!): The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Damn, that'd make a good signature.

I'm mostly OT here, but thanks for listening. Mods, here's my a**; spank me, baby!

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 04:08 PM
They do don't see that imposing these restrictions will create an inevitable backfire.. not to mention other countries will have advantages over the US in terms of US IT companies not wanting to develope certain technologies, where as IT companies overseas will, due to lesser costs..

"Any provider who blocks access to the Internet is inviting customers to find another provider," Whitacre said in his keynote speech. "It's bad business." He then emphatically stated that AT&T would not block independent services, "nor will we degrade [Internet access]. Period, end of story."

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 06:42 PM
I look at it this way . . . historically, once Big Brother or Big Business gets their rotten, stinking toe in the door, it's only a matter of time before they trash the house and make it uninhabitable.

'Nuff said.

PS: We need a fart emoticon for cases just like this.

new topics

top topics

log in