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.


Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:16 PM
You got some 'slainin to do!
Thanks to Dick Army, Michelle Bachmann and other Republicans pretending to be independants, Tea Party members are manipulated into bed with corporate America! And their loving it. Rather than see corporatism as a big part of our problems, they fall for the old patriotism = unregulated capitalism vs THE GOVERNMENT ( the FCC) baloney!

Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net neutrality

"Tea Party activists are doing their best to tip the scales toward the corporate behemoths, following conservative leaders' warnings that the FCC is plotting a government takeover of the Internet. Thirty-five Tea Party-affiliated groups recently signed on to a letter to the FCC in support of the telecom industry’s top priority. Big-money conservative organizations active in the Tea Party, including billionaire David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey’s Freedomworks, are leading campaigns against Net Neutrality. Tea Party caucus founder Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) calls Net Neutrality “censorship of the Internet” while Rush Limbaugh slams it as “the fairness doctrine of the Internet.”

Just another branch of the Republican Party
They want your money!

edit on 13-9-2010 by OldDragger because: (no reason given)


Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.

edit on 13-9-2010 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:39 PM
Tea Partiers???
Where are you?

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:44 PM
Let's see...
Was this the original plan all along???

TO generate a faux populist movement to legitimize corporate autocracy over the lives of individuals through ownership of lobbyists?

Sounds like what Ross Perot tried in 1992, he said all the right things and then his organization turned out to be a bunch of heavy handed henchmen - we were played as the fools then... now its the 'tea party'!

When Perots henchmen turned out to be Nazis in the "perot" organization I exchanged info with other newsletter editors and made a binder 3 inches thick of how the movement was really being 'run'

By strange luck, I got a call from a night club on top of a hirise overlooking the potomac, they had a noise problem...I was the consultant... Who lives downstairs I asked? They said Larry King! King made Ross, until the last interview where he cut him off at is knees...after I dressed as a delivery man and walked in and said "Delivery for Mr King, sign here_________,- and now Larry King got that binder!

It was the third interview, two weeks later, that Larry King gave Ross Perot a very hard time....

edit on 13-9-2010 by seataka because: more is better

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 06:23 PM
Don't worry, you won't have to bother with them posting in this thread. They will not engage you, they will not seek to defend this position. The best strategy is the troll strategy:
1) Criticize Opponent
2) Claim your opponent misrepresents/misunderstands your position on an issue
3) Don't provide a clear position, or solution to the issue
4) If opponent criticizes your lack of position and your argument against theirs repeat step #2 and then step #1 repeating the cycle until step #4 is achieved again (repeat until opponent concedes)

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:06 PM
Of course they dont want net neutrality, Tea Party premise is smaller government out of the lives of the people.

Net neutrality is another power grab by the government to regulate and oversee another facet of the lives of the people in the US.

I agree, they push this as its going to "help" the people and promote more freedom on the internet......

All one has to do is look back at ANYTHING the government has done when its stuck its hands into something, to see how well that always turns out.

I dont need the government to oversee my internet, or to have their hooks into what I do on the internet.....

I for one can see the inherent pitfalls in another program set forth by government entities like the FCC, to meddle in the private affairs of Americans, and if you think for ONE moment they wont exploit this false premise of "Net Neutrality" then you are either too trusting of our government, or pro big government.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:27 PM
reply to post by OldDragger

1st, there is no "Tea Party." there are Tea Party activists, and there are others who wish to exploit the "Tea Party" appellation to their own advantage. Even Democrats are trying to organize "Tea Party" organizations for ballot inclusion and other efforts.

2nd, "net neutrality" is widely misunderstood.

It is really very simple if you think of the Internet as a pipeline.

ISPs like verizon, Comcast, Roadrunner(Time-Warner) and dozens of others are "pipeline" companies.
There are "inlets" to the pipeline. These are providers of things like Google, Amazon, pornstarsRus, and ITunes.
There are "outlets" on the pipeline. You and I, by paying the pipeline companies, get an outlet to our computers.
As things stand right now, there are no legal or regulatory restrictions on what goes into the pipeline, or who can have an outlet (except, in some places, for sex-offenders).

THIS is "net neutrality."

Sometimes, a pipeline company may try to push some of the stuff your way, or make it easier to get from your outlet. They are not being pipelines anymore, but are trying to control access to and availability of competing providers. That is unfair, and is a violation of your agreement with them. You can sue them for denying you fair access to competing providers. Some of the providers can sue them, too if they think they are not getting to you and I and others down the line.
Recently, some members of the Obama administration and Congress decided that the ONLY way to make sure that things remained "fair" is that if the Government gets to say what is fair, instead of you and me and the providers.
Google and Verizon thought that they might be able to create a system in the pipeline where Google could get extra service from Verizon in the wireless portions of the pipeline. Other pipeline companies and other providers could do the same. Some people, who had telephone lines or cables plugged into the pipeline would not be affected, but some would. Everyone in the wireless connections would be affected.

THIS is the Government version of "Net Neutrality."

See, they name something for the opposite of what it really means. Happens all the time.
In the 80's they created something called the "Employee's Rights and Income Security Act" because insurance companies were screwing with peoples retirement and disability benefits.
Sounds great, right?
Guess what it REALLY does: it says employees have NO rights to sue their bosses or the insutance for screwing up their disability until the ins. co. says they can; and even then, after about 5 years or so, ONLY for the benefits they should've gotten on day one! So now, insurers deny disability, wait 5 years, and if you're still there, MAYBE they'll pay, but never more than they should have in the first place.
Sad. Pathetic. A COMPLETE LIE.

Just like Government "Net Neutrality."

Tea Party movement groups HATE Government Net Neutrality, because they will screw it up just like they've done with disability, housing, health insurance, social security, education and labor.

Do you really want to give government MORE control over your life? Do you really trust government to "do the right thing;" or the thing that benefits them?

Those who fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it.

Oh, some people LIKE government providing their education, health care, housing and income. It makes things real simple instead of having to try hard, work and think for themselves.
Is that you? I know several people who DO want this.

You will need to decide for yourself if you are better at deciding these things for yourself, or if you would be better off letting Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, or any other politician, decide what is best for you.

Good luck.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:29 PM

Let me try to explain.... This "net neutrality" legislation is a big win for special interests if they can get it passed, it will do exactly the opposite of what it's original intention was.

The internet is fine as it is today. Today's internet is simple... if one of the major providers tries to cut off say "yourfavoritesite", you can switch providers. The whole purpose of "internet legislation" is to PREVENT you from having the choice because they will regulate ALL of the providers into the same system of THEIR choosing. And by "they" I mean the BIG political lobbyist. The Big Telcos have hired an army of lobbyist which include 18 former members of congress to lobby for their "NEW" Net Neutrality laws that "They" get to write. BAIT & SWITCH and the uninformed will buy into it hook, line, and sinker and "support" it because they are unaware of what has happened.

Net Neutrality isn't necessary in the U.S. because of the Free Market. Basically, if a mainstream Telco Internet provider forces surcharges for the "good" websites, then some third party company will offer everything for the same price to steal the customers back. That is, they will if they are NOT regulated and can't because the Telcos have written the legislation against the 3rd party competition. Now that 3rd party will be stuck and won't be able to undercut the telcos because the regulation won't allow them to.

What started as a good thing has been corrupted by special interests.... Net Neutrality regulation will end up being the opposite of what it was intended and we will get slammed. Better to leave the internet "AS IS" and let the consumer decide than let the BIG MONEY telcos actually WRITE the legislation.... Do you get it, they are going to regulate the internet under the guise of "net neutrality" IN THEIR FAVOR and screw us.

Leave the internet alone... It is not broken. When they get done with this, all of your biggest fears will be written into the regulation against you.

FCC Ignores Criticism Over Lack Of Transparency; Negotiates Net Neutrality Behind Closed Doors With Industry Execs
from the you-don't-want-this dept

As much as we believe in the importance of a neutral network, we've pointed out over and over again that the last thing people should want is for specific net neutrality rules to be written by the government. For a while now, we've warned that once the lobbyists took over, people supporting net neutrality wouldn't like the results. And, of course, everything has been playing out following just that script. The telcos hired a ton of high-power lobbyists to cover net neutrality, including eighteen former members of Congress. And, despite arguing for years that net neutrality was evil, the telcos "miraculously" admitted last month they "might agree" to regulations... just as long as they got to write the details

Given that, there was a lot of outrage last month for a series of secret meetings between telco/cable execs and the FCC. You would think that, given the public beating the FCC got over those meetings it would know better than to hold more. No such luck. Apparently they're right back at it.

As important as the concept of a neutral network might be, what comes out of this sausage making process is going to favor the very companies net neutrality regulations are supposed to keep in line.

edit on 13-9-2010 by infolurker because: bolding text

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:29 PM
reply to post by TheOneElectric

Guess you were wrong, no?

Afraid of a free market, or open discussion?

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:37 PM
By the way, this was done about a month ago:
Tea Party out against net neutrality

Something new come up since the first wave of BS?

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:41 PM
Interesting pro-gov/liberal spin on things here....
Lobbying to keep the FCC from assuming total control of the US domestic Internet (Obama's "Kill Switch" anyone?) turned into something against the people?

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:59 PM
With all due respect to the pro-regulatory socialists here, the government has no legitimate place in controlling the Internet. If they want to sponsor programs to provide HSD to those who cannot otherwise receive it, fine.
ISP's pay backhaul providers who in turn pay to access the backbone. Verizon, AT&T, Qwest, etc. own the circuits that connect to your house / place of business and you lease service from them. If you believe in property rights, the ISP's have the right to control what goes across their networks.

However, I have a contract with them for a certain amount of bandwidth and so long as they provide me with that I have no right to protest their desires to provide preferential service to content providers who want to pay more. Do I have a right to sue Verizon because they refuse to supply me access to the Usenet "alt" hierarchy? Not really 'cause they do allow me to purchase access from another NNTP provider.

Seems everyone is turning into spoiled children. Why aren't you arguing with iTunes cause you can't buy from Zune or why not blast Sony 'cause you can't message one of their "Home" users from your Xbox Live account? You don't have a problem with that so realize they are all networks, even the ISP is a network, and they have the right to control the content on their network, throttle users who are inconsiderate and abuse the trunk bandwidth.

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:21 AM
Fine uber capitalists and government paranoids.Don't you get that corporate America IS the executive branch?
Here's what we can expect:
Private ownwership of the internet, heavily censored at ever increasing cost.
Why you would trust unregulated corporations is beyond me. I guess you are just good little consumers!

edit on 14-9-2010 by OldDragger because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:59 AM

Originally posted by OldDragger
Fine uber capitalists and government paranoids.Don't you get that corporate America IS the executive branch?
Here's what we can expect:
Private ownwership of the internet, heavily censored at ever increasing cost.
Why you would trust unregulated corporations is beyond me. I guess you are just good little consumers!

If corporate America is the executive, then why would you support giving the executive MORE power? The FCC is an executive agency, if you don't know.

Private ownership of the internet is EXACTLY what we have now! Would you prefer the "Post Office" equivalent in charge? The IRS?

I trust the market, customers and "unregulated corporations" far more than I trust lobbyist-owned legislators and agency lackeys.

The internet is just fine without someone in D.C. looking over our shoulders and tweaking the rules to make things more "fair" for their benefactors and contributors.

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:17 AM

Ahh, the fine fragrance of ignorance. Nice and fresh.

There seems to be a problem between the two perceptions people have on net neutrality, and there is a simple reason for this.

See, it is actually very similar to what they did with the tea party. Net Neutrality has been an "unofficial" project for a while by many vocal people to keep the internet, and here is the clincher, it's in the name folks, NEUTRAL. As in, untouched. As in, ISP providers can not harm it and likewise, the government can not regulate and control it. The ONLY thing that the government had to do with the original project on Net Neutrality is protect it from the ISP's. This doesn't mean taking over the internet, it means that if the ISP's did anything to mess with the internet, in a quintessential sense of defending constitutional and natural rights, the government would tell the ISP's to # off. That's it. Nothing more. Keep. The. Internet. Neutral. It is by far the greatest thing mankind has made, and to control it for personal means either for profit or big brother, is plain evil.

But in the past 3 years or so, many "Progressive" types advocated the government to have more regulation on the internet. And the fact is, corporations and government help each other. Government doesn't need to regulate the internet itself if it has ISP's do it and likewise ISP's can have government enact laws stifling freedom to information and the trade of data, which gets into the whole pirating thing that I'm not even going to talk about.

Fact is, the internet is going to be under attack very soon. ACTA is right around the corner, and that will likely just be the start of things. # net neutrality and # this silly sense from you polarized political lunatics that this is okay in any sense, it isn't. If PEOPLE don't start getting pissed off about this and lashing back, we will have lost one of our greatest creations.

new topics

top topics


log in