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.

 

Tea Party Groups Out AGAINST Net Neutrality

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Source


Following the release of Google and Verizon's controversial proposal on managing Internet traffic, which comes less than a week after the FCC abandoned efforts at a hammering out a compromise, Tea Party groups have taken a strong stance on the issue of net neutrality.

Specifically, they're against it. The head of one Tea Party organization says she is concerned that the policy would increase government regulation and power, calling net neutrality one of many "assaults on individual liberties."

Related link

You would have thought that regarding net neutrality issue, everybody will be on the same page. But of course that's not true, there are some group of people who are okay or have the delusion that it'll be okay if corporations "free market system" just do whatever they want to the internet infrastructure.

The tea party is so not to be trusted, too corporatists leaning, and Ron Paul might be like that too.




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Net neutrality is dumb.

It is lobbied heavily for by Time Warner because they don't want the competition from Verizon.

When you declare that ISPs can't differentiate price based on usage, you create a situation where you have to be a major provider already in order to cover the costs of excessive bandwidth usage by a small portion of customers.

The goal of "net neutrality" is not a noble one. It is government interfering with something the private market could handle on its own.

If an ISP begins charing different rates for different amounts of usage, the public can decide on its own if they want to continue doing business with that ISP. We don't need criminal government regulators in there hosing up the free market.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Net neutrality is not actually what everyone thinks it is. The comon assumption is that without it, a user's every action on the internet would be monitered and every post (blog, picture, video etc) could be removed by the federal government as they see fit (and not because of the rules of the local website in question).

While that would be draconic, net neurtality is actually the rule that no internet provider shall discriminate on it's customers, that is, providing high speed internet to those who pay a premium and leaving ones who do not pay the premium (or can't afford it), to a much slower and limited connection. While lack of the true internet neutrality would be a grievence, I would prefer it over a totalitarian internet.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xammu
While lack of the true internet neutrality would be a grievence, I would prefer it over a totalitarian internet.

Yeah, you're right, star for you. But it doesn't mean that corporations can't be totalitarian, too.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


You can thank Glenn Beck for this one, after he got on TV and ranted about it, with completely wrong information.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 

Yeah.
As if Beck understands how the internet works.

I'll give everyone a preview what would happen if there's no hindrance to the current trend, okay. It starts with google and verizon. Here's the article.

Facebook differs with Google on Net neutrality


Facebook has released a statement about its stance on the controversial topic of Net neutrality--and it's not in agreement with Google, which recently announced a proposal with Verizon Communications in which it recommends that Net neutrality not extend beyond the "public Internet" of wireline networks.


Google is trying to rephrase what the internet is, there's the "public internet" and the wireless "not so public" internet. If this is to continue, the internet will become compartmentalized. That compartmentalized part will be under the mercy of the corporations that control it. They will have the monopoly over it once the community become too deeply involved in it. It will be very difficult to break their monopoly after that. Basically this is what happen with Microsoft Windows OS, it's not easy to replace since everybody is using it right now.

However if the idea of any regulation is simply too much to accept, then the mass should take a gamble on it, let's just hope the corporations will fail in their attempt to "land grab" the web.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
The new internet shall rise from the ashes of the old internet if corporations take over, so for and against doesn't really matter.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
This shows how silly the Tea Party can be. They also support Sarah Palin.

There are people who are aware of how sick both the Dem and Rep party are, and they are some of the Tea Party members. But they are not the leadership.

The leadership is a bunch of fascists taking advantage of that available "base" and a nice name, it seems to me.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Did anyone read the letter written to the FCC before parroting the media spin ?

www.atr.org...



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
i just got one question, how are google and verizon able to make decisions about the internet as a whole? i wasn't aware that google and verizon owned the internet. that's like kfc and popeyes chicken getting together and saying fried chicken is the only chicken legally allowed to be served anymore. what the f***?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy

Google is trying to rephrase what the internet is, there's the "public internet" and the wireless "not so public" internet. If this is to continue, the internet will become compartmentalized. That compartmentalized part will be under the mercy of the corporations that control it. They will have the monopoly over it once the community become too deeply involved in it. It will be very difficult to break their monopoly after that. Basically this is what happen with Microsoft Windows OS, it's not easy to replace since everybody is using it right now.

However if the idea of any regulation is simply too much to accept, then the mass should take a gamble on it, let's just hope the corporations will fail in their attempt to "land grab" the web.


This is the dumbest thing ive ever heard. You have no concept of how economics works do you? If i provide a service then I can charge whatever I want for it, correct? Now, the price is determined by the amount of people who want it and the amount of that those people are willing to pay for it. Eventually, things like the "not so public" wireless internet will become more available, less pricey and also better just thru this simple and beginner lesson of economics.

If google decides to charge to much for it, then only a few will pay for it. Kinda like cell phones when they first came out (the big ars grey 10 pound things if you remember). Cell phones werent cheap due to the lack of supply that was out there even if the demand was high. Eventually, down the line, like as in today, you can get a cell phone with a decent plan CHEAPER then you can get a traditional house phone line. This is all because of supply and demand and the better technology that is out there.

The same is holding truefor the wireless internet right now. Just look at the first pda's taht came out less then 10 years ago. Because technology is expanding faster today then it was even 5 years ago and the demand is deffinately there that most cell phones come with plans to get coverage for some type of wifi. Eventually, without the government's help might I add, all of the cell phones out there will have a larger coverage for wifi along with better coverage for pda's, tablets and even laptops.

Now, as you wish, lets put the government's red tape in there. The demand will still be the same along with the supply, but the rate at which the newer services out there will get to the consumer will slow severely eventually making the demand go down a bit. If and when you loose demand then you also loose the drive to make it better. Eventually we will all end up with cell phones that have crap wifi coverage when instead we can have better stuff in the long run.

I highly recommend you take a step back from the situation instead of getting emotionally involved when you see what you determine to be a negative comment about the party you wish to hate on and think why the other's point of view is different and where they are coming from.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


Here's a article which is pretty self explanatory and simple to understand why If Verizon and Google Win, We Lose

If you are interested do go through it. As for me personally I have blocked all google links and removed chrome, google updater, search engine etc. completely from my system. I know it doesn't matter much in large scale but I want to do my part of opposing google.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Net Neutrality is protectionism with a typically modern Orwellian name.

mnemeth1 is right. The rule would cement the power of large businesses and essentially force smaller ISPs out of the market.

Not to mention it just gets the fingers of the state into the Internet even more. The need for enforcement would give them all the excuses they need to snoop and tinker and regulate.

Do you see a major, fundamental, show-stopping problem with how Internet access is provided? Does anyone you know? It's all smoke-and-mirrors, yet another purely imaginary crisis designed to increase the power of the state. Same old, same old.

The free Internet is one of the marvels of peaceful human civilization. The regulated Internet will turn into yet another ugly beast providing fodder for political bull# for years to come.

Free, productive people build wonders, then the nonproductive state appropriates them to itself, perverting or even destroying them in the process. It's been going on since recorded history.

ETA: Useful wonders. States can of course build things like pyramids.



[edit on 13-8-2010 by NewlyAwakened]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NewlyAwakened
 


B..b..b..b.bbbbbut it has such a nice sounding name...."Net Neutrality."

I can just see the fools smiling strapped onto tables as the receiving end of a rape train happily content with their "love mandate."

Make it sound like what it isnt and people will love it.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Yet again the fake Tea Party aka Right Wing embrace all that is reptilian.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


Like to add another thing the control of Tea Party was taken over by Freedomworks, run by former GOP house leader Representative Dick Armey of Texas. Thus it's no surprise why Freedomworks (Tea Party) has officially come out supporting the Google's & Verizon's views on net neutrality as two of the primary contributors to Freedomworks are Verizon and AT&T. It's all about saving their source of money for Tea Party.


[edit on 13-8-2010 by Crimson_King]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
The supposed 'tea party' movement is a foil for corporate fascism at least 90% of the time.

Their only variant from the globalist corporate agenda is where they support secure national borders,

while the slave labor employers would rather have an infinite supply of desperate slaves.

On net neutrality,
If we had built out fiber optic capacity [broadband] across this nation instead of spending half a trillion dollars pointlessly for imaginary WMDs,

this wouldn't even be an issue,
because corporations couldn't market something to you that you already have.

But the government works for corporations & against the American in treacherous betrayal,
in hopes we will never (1) wake up, (2) gain minds, (3) then spines & kick their treasonous backsides to hell.

But i guess taxpayers would rather subsidize Raytheon, Blackwater, Halliburton, Bechtel etc.,

instead of forcing 'their' government to work for them & their highways, schools & infrastructure.

Are some people natural born slaves?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Oh my goodness.

Haven´t yall escaped the Nazi technique of changing the meaning of words

¨net neutrality¨ use to mean something totally else just a few years ago. It was right and just, and is already so, the internet is ¨net neutral¨¨

however, just like they name a bill ¨the military commissions act¨ when it doesn´t have a damn thing to do with any military commissions, you´ll understand what this ¨Net Neutrality¨ is. It is evil and it´s not about making the internet neutral, it´s about taking it away!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeez do I have to draw a picture. You should be against this ¨Net Neutrality¨
and for ¨net neutrality¨ which is already so. the internet is neutral, you can just as easily access a website from the middle of Africa as you can walmart.com

if these corporations get their way, this ¨net neutrality¨will be taken away, and replaced with their ¨Net Neutrality¨ which means they get access to the gold, to the data, and then sponsors like Walmart would pay for their walmart.com to be given preferential treatment to the Podunk website from Africa. Am I making any sense

Please, the net is already neutral. Be vehemently opposed to this ¨Net Neutrality !!!!!! Can you see, can you hear, can you understand what is going on.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
instead of forcing 'their' government to work for them & their highways, schools & infrastructure.

Are some people natural born slaves?

How are you forcing the government to work for you? By casting your vote for one of two deceptive, glory-hungry pawns?

Maybe people are natural-born slaves. But the divide-and-conquer that's been going on, where they get one group of powerless people to blame another group of powerless people who happen to have a different ideology, and vice versa, has been amazingly successful. The higher-ups just watch and laugh.

Maybe we're all just willing slaves, but is there really a whole lot you can do when your balls are in a vise-grip?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Also, there is a divine cosmic play ringing down here for the final act. I suggest you don´t listen to the MSM on anything regarding the ¨Tea Party¨

The tea party is not the ¨Tea Party¨

the true tea party is individuals, not any organization with any mission statement or official stances. These are individuals who have had it with the Republican and Democratic parties and understand that they are not two separate parties, but One Party.




top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join