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: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


So I take it that you consider government control over the internet just fine and dandy. The internet,a place where anyone's voice can be heard freely.
Being quashed by a doctrine of silence the opposition,under the guise of net neutrality.
Any control put upon the "net" is an infringement upon first amendment rights!!




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
A lot of people in this thread are misunderstanding the term "net neutrality", including the OP.

Net neutrality is what we want, what we have now. It is a good thing.

The OP is ass backwards. The tea party is saying they're all in favor of net neutrality, and they are against the corporate takeover.

It's pretty well known that Huff is the liberals equivalent of Faux News, and what they are doing here is deliberately mixing up terms for people who don't know any better in order to once again try to demonize the tea party.

This whole thread is a sham


Here's a quote from OPs article that was said by a tea party member:




"The Internet has never been a regulated utility and we urge you to keep it that way by rejecting so-called "Net Neutrality" regulations on the Internet and the proposed Title II reclassification."


Huffington post took this one sentence and turned it around to make it look like the person was saying they were against "Net Neutrality", when in fact she meant they were against the regulations of net neutrality. Do you people see what the Huffington Post did here?

[edit on 13-8-2010 by havenvideo]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.


Yeah, where I am if I do not like the way Time Warner treats me as a customer then I have the freedom to choose no internet because Time Warner is the only choice we got here. This will work out well.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by havenvideo
A lot of people in this thread are misunderstanding the term "net neutrality", including the OP.

Net neutrality is what we want, what we have now. It is a good thing.

The OP is ass backwards. The tea party is saying they're all in favor of net neutrality, and they are against the corporate takeover.

It's pretty well known that Huff is the liberals equivalent of Faux News, and what they are doing here is deliberately mixing up terms for people who don't know any better in order to once again try to demonize the tea party.

This whole thread is a sham



Uh, you might want to research the issue a little. Net Neutrality is a proposal for legislation. It's not what we have now.

Well, "net neutrality" perhaps is. See my post above where I mention the Orwellian nature of the term.

ETA: Actually per your edit I think you get it.



[edit on 13-8-2010 by NewlyAwakened]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NewlyAwakened
 


Yeah I get it and I think Huffington Post should be tried for libel because of this article.

Honestly I think a mod should edit the first post in this thread to point out that the Huffington Post article is completely and blatantly lying about this situation.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2weird2live2rare2die
i just got one question, how are google and verizon able to make decisions about the internet as a whole?


I can tell right here that this issue is going to be distorted and spun for political purposes and frankly big business propaganda purposes.

Google and Verizon...they sign a deal where google searches and associated content GET PRIORITY by Verizon customers...speed and access.

A customer who gets their internet via Verizon goes to the Yahoo News page and ...........waiting...waiting.....it takes forever, or might not come up at all absent net nuetrality. They go to google...bam!! it pops right up.

Now that is just access to news and media...

Now think shopping.

Someone goes online via thier service provider AT&T looking for product x...which a subsiderary of ATT just happens to sell. Strangely only one website actually loads that sells the product ....AT&T's...get it? You go to buy a book or toy online and companies that haven't signed deals?..thier sites will be VERY slow or won't load at all..that's if you even get them in search results..

Now start thinking about EBay vs Amazon.com vs. Other big store sites...when they sign agreements with internet providers for special bandwidth.

You go to do a search and you can only access those vendors that have signed a deal with your internet provider.

Now think about money, politics and the news media...and Verizon or AT&T or Comcast deciding how easy it is/or if you can at all pull up a given news outlet...it gets scary fast.






[edit on 13-8-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 13-8-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
My understanding about Net Neutrality is that there is a traditional model in the ISP land that they do not charge extra for traffic based on content. This is changing as they try to figure out new ways to make money.

So under the desired (by corporatists) plan, sites like You Tube and Facebook would only be available at full speed if the user was paying for an unrestricted connection. Cheaper connections would either reduce the bandwidth or restrict access altogether. Many of the companies who stand to benefit from this are saying this is no differant than something like a cable premium package vs. a standard package.

The legislation is Congress, I thought, was intended to re-enforce the fact that ISPs could not interfere with the natural flow of traffic based on content. The reason for the legislation is that the FCC lost a case a year or so back, I believe.

Now having said all that, I may be incorrect on my understanding of this situation.. I have been a bit out of the loop for a while.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by zzombie
Did anyone read the letter written to the FCC before parroting the media spin ?


You expect too much from people. Who wants to read what was actually stated when they can take the media's word for it instead.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers


So under the desired (by corporatists) plan, sites like You Tube and Facebook would only be available at full speed if the user was paying for an unrestricted connection. Cheaper connections would either reduce the bandwidth or restrict access altogether.


Replace "user" with "content provider"...that is the other side of the coin.

Like with Google and Verizon...Google pays Verizon to make sure their content, search engine, shopping site etc. is easier to access than the competitions. That is not a deal that involves the user..but the provider.

Users will not be charged more for access to youtube...youtube will sign a deal long before that.

Shopping sites will be a big deal. The whole advantage of shopping the internet is to get the best price...absent net nuetrality...that openmarketplace will be limited by varying degrees to companies that sign deals with your ISP.

Non-Net Nuetrality means less consumer choices in internet shopping, higher prices.

It also gets scary to think that Media Moguls will be able to determine what we are able to access on the internet....or more accurately...what we think we are accessing.

The first case of a Net Nuetrality violation occured with Comcast secretly "throttling" access for certain sites... Google and BitTorrent. They did it in a way that puposefully made it appear like an error of the website or user.

From Wikipedia


Network neutrality
Further information: Network neutrality
As early as late 2006, Comcast has implemented measures using Sandvine hardware which sends forged TCP RST (reset) packets, disrupting multiple protocols used by peer-to-peer file sharing networks.[84] This has prevented most Comcast users from uploading files.[85]

On August 17, 2007, TorrentFreak reported that Comcast has been preventing BitTorrent users from seeding files.[85] In October 2007, the Associated Press confirmed the story that indicates that Comcast "actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally."[86] In November 2007, Comcast's severe limiting of torrent applications was again confirmed by a study conducted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in which public domain literature is distributed over peer-to-peer networks. Analysis of the EFF study finds "strong evidence that Comcast is using packet-forging to disrupt peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing on their network".[87] The studies show that Comcast effectively prevents distribution of files over peer-to-peer networks by sending a RST packet under the guise of the end user, and denying the connection, which effectively blocks the user from seeding over BitTorrent. Legal controversy arises because instead of simple filtering, Comcast is sending RST packets to Comcast customers, pretending to be the host user at the other end of the BitTorrent connection.[88] Comcast's BitTorrent throttling was revealed to be through a partnership with Sandvine, although Comcast's internal memos instruct employees to respond to the contrary.[89][90]

There is also evidence of Comcast using RST packets on groupware applications that have nothing to do with file sharing. Kevin Kanarski, who works as a Lotus Notes messaging engineer, noticed some strange behavior with Lotus Notes dropping emails when hooked up to a Comcast connection and has managed to verify that Comcast's reset packets are the culprit.[91] A lawsuit, Hart v. Comcast, has been filed accusing Comcast of false advertising and other unfair trade practices for allegedly advertising unlimited high-speed Internet access while in reality working to restrict their customers' usage of the Internet.[92]

In 2007, Comcast customers reported a sporadic inability to use Google, because forged RST packets are interfering with HTTP access to google.com,[93] which has further angered users.[94]

en.wikipedia.org...

Now the FCC tried to slap down Comcast and got overturned in court.

The law as it stands does not empower the FCC to demand that Internet Service Providers obey net nuetrality. They can tweak your access anyway they like until we get a law in place.

Que...political pundits and lobbyists...useful rhetoric is "government taking over the internet and interfering in business"

Bottom line...we pay for ACCESS to the internet....NOT access to only what sites the internet service provider wants us to have access to.



Some day in the near future you may be wondering why the ATS site is down, but what you won't realize is that it is not "down" it's just that your internet service provider doesn't want you visiting it anymore.






[edit on 13-8-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by zzombie
Did anyone read the letter written to the FCC before parroting the media spin ?


You expect too much from people. Who wants to read what was actually stated when they can take the media's word for it instead.


Star for both of you. It is amazing how people with so much internet access and ability can be so mistaken about the basic concepts involved here!

First, this is only the OP's rant against certain people who signed on to a letter, claiming they represent the Tea Party Movement, or even any specific "Tea Party" groups.

Second, true net neutrality already exists: You can use any ISP to go to any site regardless of how much bandwidth one takes over the other, or what content they offer.

What Google, Verizon and the Left-Liberal Democrats want is to LIMIT your ACCESS; regardless of the costs of your ISP services.

The debate pits providers like Verizon against companies and individuals who use their networks to deliver products and services to customers. The providers are interested in the amount of money they spend on building and maintaining network infrastructure by charging those companies who use inordinate bandwidth for privileged access and delivery to customers.

The internet has never worked this way.

Google and Verizon's ensure that wireline internet services (like cable, phone lines and DSL) not be used for any such paid access, just as it is today.

The real hidden danger is the regulation of (government) "Net Neutrality" in which NONE of these protections apply to wireless networks. Nor do they apply to something called "additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV)" using current wireline networks.

It is the wireless exemption that most worries free-internet proponents, including the Tea Party movement.

Anyone paying attention to the future of telecommunications and the internet will tell you, wireless web access will soon overtake traditional wired networks as most people's primary means of getting online. (Think about Smartphones, iPhones and Androids, here!)

Would you prefer to be stuck with a 28.8 modem today? This is where you'll be if they control wireless access and bandwidth!

This means blocking high-bandwidth sites like YouTube, giving preference to one streaming service over another (like only allowing Netflix's Watch Instantly vs. any other movie-streaming service), or blocking certain protocols like BitTorrent altogether.

Again, how can so many with so much access and opportunity be so ignorant of basic facts?

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 

What you've missed entirely is that the FCC should NOT be filing suits this. That is NOT within their Congressionally-established authority.

Your wiki "source" clearly explains that service providers and consumers have taken Comcast to court for this.

Other providers are providing competition. The MARKET will force Comcast and others to compete fairly or be replaced.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Second, true net neutrality already exists: You can use any ISP to go to any site regardless of how much bandwidth one takes over the other, or what content they offer.

What Google, Verizon and the Left-Liberal Democrats want is to LIMIT your ACCESS; regardless of the costs of your ISP services.


Mostly correct, Comcast was busted blocking access to certain sites and sending out mock denial of service pages that made it look like it was the sites issue, not Comcast blocking it.

But more or less Net Nuetrality is what most people get as far as we know and that is what we are looking to preserve. Comcast, verizon, AT&T have been very clear that they want to be able to charge for special access to specific content, sites, etc. While at the same time claiming "Unlimited Internet Access"..they even had memos telling staff to deny that they were blocking access.

I have provided links for the this claim. The government showed, independant groups found this to be true and in the end Comcast admitted the nefarious behavior. If you think any this is untrue please explain why and provide eviodence to the contrary.


Originally posted by jdub297
The debate pits providers like Verizon against companies and individuals who use their networks to deliver products and services to customers. The providers are interested in the amount of money they spend on building and maintaining network infrastructure by charging those companies who use inordinate bandwidth for privileged access and delivery to customers.


OK ...again true, but you leave out the fact that it is not just "inordinate amounts of bandwidth" that Internet Service Providers are demanding the right to block, they want the right to "throttle" "reduce" or outright block access to ANY CONTENT or SITE that THE ISP CHOOSES.

I am not looking for a political debate, but a factual one. Please provide links or evidence that shows my statement as untrue.


Originally posted by jdub297
Google and Verizon's ensure that wireline internet services (like cable, phone lines and DSL) not be used for any such paid access, just as it is today.


Again this seems a false claim as the most well known and documented case of violating Net Nuetrality is by Comcast...blocking access to BitTorrent and Google content...NIETHER OF WHICH ARE PAID ACCESS.

This has been documented and even admitted by Comcast when the memos became public. Again if you disagree...please provide proof or links like I have in this thread.


Originally posted by jdub297
The real hidden danger is the regulation of (government) "Net Neutrality" in which NONE of these protections apply to wireless networks. Nor do they apply to something called "additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV)" using current wireline networks.

It is the wireless exemption that most worries free-internet proponents, including the Tea Party movement..


The original proposal by the FCC was to demand net Nuetrality across all internet services...both Wireless/Telecom and landline.

This was fiercly opposed by conservatives and telecomm lobbyists. In a compromise the FCC proposed allowing telecomm companies a psuedo exemption defining that access as telecommunications...and now those same conservative forces are criticizing that compromise.

They were for it before they were against...end goal..complete blockage of free internet..



FreedomWorks is also on the record supporting the telecommunications industry's position on network neutrality.[16] Broadband Internet companies like Verizon and AT&T would like to create "tiers" or "lanes" on the information superhighway:




FreedomWorks has accepted corporate contributions from telephone giants Verizon and SBC (now AT&T).[14]


www.commoncause.org...


It seems a familiar tactic.

Lastly I will note that I read the letter that was sent by the TPM...Nowhere did I see them take issue with the Telecomm exemption?

FCC Launches "third way" Net Nuetrality
www.pcmag.com...

Tea Party Out Against Net Nuetrality
thehill.com...

Let's cut to the root of the tea party position..They outline the marching orders and rhetoric right here..

Freedomworks Sept. 09
Net Nuetrality is Theft/The Internet is not Free
www.freedomworks.org...

Here is a good explanation of where Freedomworks is misrepresenting the facts..

including a qoute by the man who created the interent, tim berners-Lee in support of Net Nuetrality..


"When, seventeen years ago, I designed the Web, I did not have to ask anyone's permission. The new application rolled out over the existing Internet without modifying it. I tried then, and many people still work very hard still, to make the Web technology, in turn, a universal, neutral, platform. It must not discriminate against particular hardware, software, underlying network, language, culture, disability, or against particular types of data.

Anyone can build a new application on the Web, without asking me, or Vint Cerf, or their ISP, or their cable company, or their operating system provider, or their government, or their hardware vendor.

It is of the utmost importance that, if I connect to the Internet, and you connect to the Internet, that we can then run any Internet application we want, without discrimination as to who we are or what we are doing."

current.com...



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by maybereal11
 

What you've missed entirely is that the FCC should NOT be filing suits this. That is NOT within their Congressionally-established authority.

Your wiki "source" clearly explains that service providers and consumers have taken Comcast to court for this.

Other providers are providing competition. The MARKET will force Comcast and others to compete fairly or be replaced.


The market was entirely unaware that Comcast was blocking access...comcast even sent out a memo telling staff to deny what they were doing...

The idea that market forces somehow prioritize ethics over profit is silly.

Free markets rock, but there needs to be rules of the game in place to protect consumers. That has always been the case, lest we take medications that kill us and eat food that poisons us, have rivers full of toxic waste etc. The profit motive spurs innovation, not ethical concern for how those profits are achieved. It's math...not humanity.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Market forces, that is customers and providers, should control the transactions between them.

If Comcast offers crappy term or restrictions, go to Verizon or AT & T.
It was the customer and providers who caught Comcast.

Why do you want the government to intervene between them? It will only lead to favoritism, deals, increased costs, and worse services.

Just look what government did to health care costs.

Years ago, the doctors and patients in America had 1-to-1 relationships. You only needed "major i;;mess/accident" insurance back then, and took care of basic costs in reasonable, affordable ways.

It was only when government programs began controlling access and costs that things got out of hand,

Now you want government to add more regulation to the services and relationships we already have?

Look at all the alternatives that come up every year. THAT is "market forces."



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Xammu
 


And when the corporations decide who can access the internet and what sites you can visit, that is not totalitarian?



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 

More proof that the now freedom hating, racist azzhats known as The Tea Bagger Group hates everything about everything that they cannot control.


This thread and especially this post are more proof that empty-minded liberal ideologies have no substance to contribute. Their best resources consist of false and incendiary statements, intend to incite fear and even hatred. Can't address the facts (or deathly fear them)? Disparage instead.


And if there is anyone who would vote for these racists needs to have their heads examined.

In truth, the vast majority of the Tea Party Movement are NOT asking for anyone's vote. They are supporting principles of less government, less intrusion on personal matters, and FEWER restrictions on freddom.

Seems this scares the crap out of the real racist asses that rely upon a more-dependent America to sustain them.


Seriously, when do we finally tell MSM that their coverage of this racist and evil group is adding to the problem of division in our nation?

As if the MSM would ever dream of supporting any free-thinking person, much less such an ideology. Of course, when the popularity of TPM ideas becomes ever more undeniable, and ever more attractive to the majority of America, the MSM and their liberal supplicants fail to understand why ever-fewer Americans care to listen to them anymore.


Kick these morons to the curb as no freedom loving, honest, decent American will support them


That's right! If you can't deny the facts anymore, use whatever tactics you can get away with, including violence, to dissuade support. That's always been an excellent sign of desperation and "last resort" tactics.

Fortunately, most of the TPM are committed to working within the rules to instead of engaging in a like-kind defense.
Some say that is misguided, and that the rule-breakers will gain the uppoer hand unless they face violence in response to violence. Sadly, it may come to that, as there are too many committed to the TPM to let it be defeated unfairly. Thus, the increasing calls for "revolution."


those who do if they cost you your freedoms you forfiet any rights you have to complain because it was you who voted them in.


Actually, those who are already 'voted in' are the ones costing freedoms and "forfeiting" rights that the TPM are willing to defend.

I'm extremely interested to see how far the TPM will go to regain what's been stolen from the America they love and grew up in. I'd be willing to bet they'll "go all the way."

deny ignorance

jw

[edit on 15-8-2010 by jdub297]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by zzombie
Did anyone read the letter written to the FCC before parroting the media spin ?

www.atr.org...



Isn't it amazing? Not only did they not read it to be sure their facts were straight before they started blazing away on the evil evil tea party, but they totally ignored it again when you gave them a link.

Thanks anyway, zzombie.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Net Neutrality is a takeover ov internet isps it is not a protection of internet censorship it is the exact oppsite.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 

More proof that the now freedom hating, racist azzhats known as The Tea Bagger Group hates everything about everything that they cannot control.


This thread and especially this post are more proof that empty-minded liberal ideologies have no substance to contribute. Their best resources consist of false and incendiary statements, intend to incite fear and even hatred. Can't address the facts (or deathly fear them)? Disparage instead.

-- Since when all of a sudden did liberalism be equated with hate and be labled everything that is the matter with this nation. Buddy, let us never forget whose watch the nation went to crap on. That's right. 43!


And if there is anyone who would vote for these racists needs to have their heads examined.

In truth, the vast majority of the Tea Party Movement are NOT asking for anyone's vote. They are supporting principles of less government, less intrusion on personal matters, and FEWER restrictions on freddom.

--Big govt makes sure say, the lotion you put on your skin will do what it says it will do. Makes sure the food you put on your kid's plate is healthy and be beneficial to them. Big Govt makes sure your kids are to get an adequate education. Big Govt makes sure that things like The Financial Industry, Energy isn't allowed to dictate the policy. Big Govt is there to make sure the car you drive in is safe and free from faulty manufactuering. The clothes you wear everyday are hypoallergenic. If there was no aura of Big Govt we'd all be screwed big time and have no safe avenues. If you want to live in a nation without regulation get out of The USA as we are nation that takes care of one another and makes sure we are all safe.

Seems this scares the crap out of the real racist asses that rely upon a more-dependent America to sustain them.


Seriously, when do we finally tell MSM that their coverage of this racist and evil group is adding to the problem of division in our nation?

As if the MSM would ever dream of supporting any free-thinking person, much less such an ideology. Of course, when the popularity of TPM ideas becomes ever more undeniable, and ever more attractive to the majority of America, the MSM and their liberal supplicants fail to understand why ever-fewer Americans care to listen to them anymore.

--To be Tea Bagger loving conservative is nothing more then today's Nazi party. Hitler would've been against Network Neutrality to whle free thinking, free people are the ones for it.


Kick these morons to the curb as no freedom loving, honest, decent American will support them


That's right! If you can't deny the facts anymore, use whatever tactics you can get away with, including violence, to dissuade support. That's always been an excellent sign of desperation and "last resort" tactics.

--Last resort? I know way more about how things truly are and the entire TBM is nothing more then a distraction meant to keep us from coming together and fighting TPTB. The writing's been on the wall since 09.

Fortunately, most of the TPM are committed to working within the rules to instead of engaging in a like-kind defense.
Some say that is misguided, and that the rule-breakers will gain the uppoer hand unless they face violence in response to violence. Sadly, it may come to that, as there are too many committed to the TPM to let it be defeated unfairly. Thus, the increasing calls for "revolution."

--The blind leading the blind. Sarah Palin and Co do not represent you and represent everyyhing that is the matter with this nation. Get that straight. Racism, against net neutrality, my, my, the only differnence between TPM and Nazi's is the date and location. Book burnings in the 1930's was the then version of todays dissolution of network neutrality. When does Krystall Nacht begin? When does the Final Solution go into effect?


those who do if they cost you your freedoms you forfiet any rights you have to complain because it was you who voted them in.


Actually, those who are already 'voted in' are the ones costing freedoms and "forfeiting" rights that the TPM are willing to defend.

-- To defend a group against network neutrality means you are what continues to remain what is fundamentally the matter with this nation. Tea Bagger plant, Hook, line, sinker, SUNK!

I'm extremely interested to see how far the TPM will go to regain what's been stolen from the America they love and grew up in. I'd be willing to bet they'll "go all the way."

deny ignorance
-- Do not defend idiots who wish to restrict what you can and cannot say on the WWW. Regain what? They never had anything and never will have anything to begin with, the group as a whole is too unstable mentally, psychologically and socially to be entrusted with the reins of political power. That would be like letting the inmates run the asylum. Ain't never going to happen. Got it? You don't let the animals run the zoo.

We hve never been a nation where one side dominates above the rest and I really feel that with this Rise Of The New Racist Extreme Right means it is just a matter of time before someone decides to take a shot at an elected official then everything we've fought and bleed for is over. I will say this right here, right now - Any person or group tries to cost any American thier freedom or rights is an enemy of mine and will be met with hostile force. Instead of being quick to defend these azzhats it is best that the entire nation distances itself from this group of mentally unstable idiots whose average IQ is less then 105.

jw

[edit on 15-8-2010 by jdub297]


Anwered in quote!

[edit on 16-8-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join