Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

McCain introduces bill to block FCC's net neutrality rules

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I could care less what congress attempts to do, I am saying the internet is not theirs to play with it belongs to us and market forces, not them. Every time government involves themselves in the lives and property and freedom of people they screw it up, every single time.


c'mon...every single time? really? tell me about all the freedoms you've lost.




posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
Every time government involves themselves in the lives and property and freedom of people they screw it up, every single time.


The FCC draft proposal for network neutrality is looking back into history and modeling much of the regulation on what has worked to stimulate the economy when similar regulations were applied to the railroad and electricity industries.


Here are the actual salient points from the current draft...



COMMISSION SEEKS PUBLIC INPUT ON DRAFT RULES TO PRESERVE THE FREE AND OPEN INTERNET

[...]

Under the draft proposed rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service:

1. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet;

2. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice;

3. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;

4. would not be allowed to deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers;

5. would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner; and

6. would be required to disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking.



That's it... a plan to ensure there are operational rules in place such that one provider cannot block your access to another provider.


The madness that this is anything related to a "fairness doctrine" is nothing more than outright lies from the conservative politicians and fear-mongering Glenn Beckazoids.

How this has been politicized into a "socialist" scheme defies logic.


[edit on 24-10-2009 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Net Neutrality threads from 2006:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not claiming dupe-post or anything like that. I just like looking back to see what was said then when an old topic becomes current again.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
[error on my part, accidental double post]


[edit on 24-10-2009 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
I put up a post about net neutrality a while back, and no one seemed very interested. If it goes through I bet you will see hundreds talking about it on here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by desertdreamer
I put up a post about net neutrality a while back, and no one seemed very interested.

Because at the time, it had not yet been politicized by blatant lies from the conservative madmen hell-bent on resisting anything and everything that appears to come from this administration -- even though the Network Neutrality proposals began as far back as 2005.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


good points SO...too bad you had to "spell it out". how hard is it for them to do a little research on this. i have felt guilty from time to time of not doing my own research, and others need to "click" a few more windows to get the full story. admitting my own ignorance is humbling, i wish others would do the same.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
I could care less what congress attempts to do,


You should care. If McCain's bill passes, your provider will be allowed to limit your access and speed. They could limit or block your access to ATS or any other site, like YouTube or God forbid, Free Republic! They would be allowed to determine what internet programs you can run on your PC. And much more. You definitely should care.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I could care less what congress attempts to do, I am saying the internet is not theirs to play with it belongs to us and market forces, not them. Every time government involves themselves in the lives and property and freedom of people they screw it up, every single time.


c'mon...every single time? really? tell me about all the freedoms you've lost.



Freedom is in jeopardy. But if they can block free speech they can then do as they please. They don't call them czars for nothing. And yes, every single time.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Fromabove]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


In a way the Internet has become the world's collective concsious and is doing through a science that we can all agree is real what spiritually and metaphysically many people feel is impossible.

yup





Plus I thought the buy off he took to run the worst campaign ever from the Rothschilds through IG Beverage to his wife was really just TOO Obvious.


You noticed that too?

[edit on 103131p://bSaturday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



I think it's misleading to as the best form of control ultimately is a free internet that everyone voluntarily attaches them selves grid like too.


perhaps many of you don't know what net neutrality really is?

It doesn't seek to take away any individuals freedom of speech...it's telling companies like Comcast and Verizon that they're not allowed to discriminate certain users

here's a snippet:


Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for residential broadband networks and potentially for all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.[1][2][3]

The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.
source


personally - i think it's a good thing.

Why?

Because i don't want AT&T restricting my iphone access to a microsoft website.

I don't want my Comcast cable internet forbidding me to visit a competitors website.

As the law stands right now - they can do all of that - and have done it before.

This is another classic example that goes to show you that Republicans hate Obama more than they love America. By trying to block this bill - Republicans are saying that it's okay for private business to restrict your internet access to another user. They tried this a while back with P2P connections and bittorrent

This bill aims to give you and I more anonymity on the internet...and John McCain wants to prevent that.

Maybe comcast will finally let me have that full bandwidth i've been paying for all these years.


from Skeptic Overlord:

Because at the time, it had not yet been politicized by blatant lies from the conservative madmen hell-bent on resisting anything and everything that appears to come from this administration -- even though the Network Neutrality proposals began as far back as 2005.


Exactly.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Snarf]



Originally posted by Fromabove



Freedom is in jeopardy. But if they can block free speech they can then do as they please. They don't call them czars for nothing. And yes, every single time.



*sigh*

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Snarf]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


There was a lot of talk about the term Lawful Content that was being brought up on other places that I belong to (not normally politically related) that this could be twisted in the end to also allow the government to deem what is lawful, in the case of one of the sites I belong to, that could mean that some of the material, since it may not always be suitable for the under 18 crowd (and no it's not porn, just 3d models) could be deemed "unlawful content"

And no I'm not dense I know what is right now unlawful content..Just pushing through that there should be a regulation on the regulation that prevents further tampering once the core (which I support, I don't know if that came across) is implemented.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


Thanks snarf, I need all the help understanding this I can get.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Here's a good piece on it from Rachel Maddow. You may not like her, but she's clear and this piece explains it very well.

McCain's Bill



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Freedom is in jeopardy.

The only freedom in "jeopardy" is that of Internet access providers to create monopolies based on access to certain networks. That's why the telcom-backed McCain wants to block the Network Neutrality regulations proposed by the FCC.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08
There was a lot of talk about the term Lawful Content that was being brought up on other places that I belong to (not normally politically related) that this could be twisted in the end to also allow the government to deem what is lawful...

If you spend the time to actually read the FCC information on the matter, "lawful" refers to copyright-infringing content... not the nature of the content. The anti-administration spin-machine is what is twisting the reality beyond the actual truth of the matter.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I am going to reserve my opinion on S.1836 until the library of congress releases the full text of the bill. It would be unwise to render an opinion on the matter whether the bill is in the best interest of Net Neutrality or not.

For all we know now John (Pro Gang Rape) McCain could be introducing legislation disguised as Net Neutrality that in fact would implement John Rockefeller's S.773 Cybersecurity Act.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by vkey08
There was a lot of talk about the term Lawful Content that was being brought up on other places that I belong to (not normally politically related) that this could be twisted in the end to also allow the government to deem what is lawful...

If you spend the time to actually read the FCC information on the matter, "lawful" refers to copyright-infringing content... not the nature of the content. The anti-administration spin-machine is what is twisting the reality beyond the actual truth of the matter.


If the rules stick to the core FCC proposal I will be the first one here and now to state I was wrong and apologize
I agree 100% with the FCC draft proposal, I did not agree with what had been put out as "riders" which could have in the end been more damaging, but again, if all the FCC is doing is sticking to the draft proposal to keep monopolies from forming and restricting bandwith etc, then I am all for it and will back down.

PS: To all those who think women never admit they were wrong, I think I just did...


[edit on 24-10-2009 by vkey08]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I could care less what congress attempts to do, I am saying the internet is not theirs to play with it belongs to us and market forces, not them. Every time government involves themselves in the lives and property and freedom of people they screw it up, every single time.


c'mon...every single time? really? tell me about all the freedoms you've lost.



Freedom is in jeopardy. But if they can block free speech they can then do as they please. They don't call them czars for nothing. And yes, every single time.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Fromabove]


NO doubt about it!

Our freedom to surf freely is in jeopardy on account of Mccains bill.
On the otherhand seems big business has a way of ratcheting up prices by multiples
and doing exactly what is wrong for American freedom.

I think ancient Mccain has no clue about the internet and its importance in todays world,
in fact he admits to being dull on the subject. His bill is billed as freedom promoting which is true, freedom to screw the tax payers "privately"-



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
I can't believe John (Pro Gang Rape) McCain is for this bill.

((snip))



An admitted computer illiterate writing a bill re: the internet.. comedy gold.

Then again a politician introducing a bill on a subject he knows nothing about is business as usual... one reason the nation is circling the drain.






top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution