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.

 

FCC Plans Internet Regulation for Christmas

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

FCC Plans Internet Regulation for Christmas


. www.heritage.org

Should regulators in Washington, D.C., set the rules for the Internet? Julius Genachowski, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), thinks so. He has crafted a plan to impose so-called “net neutrality” rules on Internet service providers, setting an FCC vote on the proposal for next Tuesday.
Lack of Legal Authority
In taking these steps toward neutrality regulation, however, the FCC faced an inconvenient obstacle: Nothing in any statute gives the FCC authority to regulate the Internet.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Net neutrality is just a step in the direction of content control. They have regulated all of our other industry and forced them off shore…and this will be next! Once any Government has control of the media…they have control of the masses. This is phase two of a very scary rabbit hole!
Capitalism works! If a company overcharges, another company will rise up and offer the service for less! It has been that way for centuries! Everything the government touches becomes more expensive and poorer quality. In the 25 years since the ATT broke up, we have internet, cell phones, and High Def television. In the half century the government controlled everything we went from operators to a rotary dial. WOW. Let's put them back in charge.



. www.heritage.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
This topic is inherently easy to navigate. There is no equality, nor neutrality in this world. The government can not, should not, and intends not to make anything equal. This is merely a grab for power. The premise of which is some utopian idea where browsers are forced to read rhetoric and opinion they never asked for or wanted.

I issue this challenge :

Where would net neutrality improve your life, your safety, and your happiness? Please list one example in depth so that there is no doubt to the goodness of your claim.

Now, put the same effort into producing one example against with the same passion.

You have just proved that net neutrality does not, can not and will never exist.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
We have First Amendment freedoms, but there are many of our political incumbenants, who would like to censor, regulate, and/or tax Internet usage. While it is true that some ISPs are trying to exploit their customers to increase their prophit margins, that's not true for all.
I believe consumers should be protected by the various federal and state consumer protection services, not the FCC or Congress.
The Feds messing with our 'Free' speech? What could go wrong?
ANY government interference with free speech and property (networks are not public property) is Unconstitutional and immoral.
Have you seen any US congress give back power once it has been stolen from us? Case in point, the Patriot Act. Now, we are getting fondled in the airport, while at the same time illegal aliens are running across the border as if the USA is one big Club Med.
Why not have THIS net neutrality regulation. This may help u understand:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Surfrat
Have you seen any US congress give back power once it has been stolen from us?


That's more or less what I was stabbing at. Why should we give regulatory control to any government entity to begin with? That type of power is so vast in scope and the revolving door of D.C. would more than grant that awesome power to the former head of that which said person is tasked to regulate. Examples of this revolving door involve the Federal Reserve/Goldman Sach's, FDA/Monsanto, Wall Street/Executive Branch.

If the first few posters were to sell their idea to me, what would that entail? Sell me, please.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Surfrat
 

This is the link to the actual article:
blog.heritage.org...

It sounds like Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a bad case of bureaucratic Hitler-itis. He seems to forget this is Not a dictatorship .... YET.

But Congress is working on it.

I notice it was Representative Henry Waxman (D–CA). who floated a legislative proposal on the same subject a month ago. Even Huff & Puff see it as a sellout to corporate interests.

I REALLY despise that man. He was the author of Cap and Trade. He was the author of the house version of the Food Safety Farce and now this.

He was a strong supporter of Obamacare. So it is interesting that his top campaign donors are in the medial field. HMMmmm I wonder what THEY knew that we do not. www.campaignmoney.com...



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
The free market takes care of itself...You succeed or you fail. You fail; you lose YOUR assets.
When Government programs fail; They lose OUR assets. Since the Government officials do not have a personal financial stake in their regulatory decisions they don't care about there Unintended Consequences:

www.youtube.com...#!



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Surfrat

The free market takes care of itself...You succeed or you fail. You fail; you lose YOUR assets.
When Government programs fail; They lose OUR assets. Since the Government officials do not have a personal financial stake in their regulatory decisions they don't care about there Unintended Consequences:

www.youtube.com...#!



Free market and free trade isn't free; it is investor's rights agreements. This means that "free trade" only makes it easier for the top corporations to take even more power; it has no considerations for the common man in progressing in the free market.

The internet itself is cyberspace, a newly discovered universal communications technology for all people of the world to use. The US sees the threat in this, people talking relevant issues in their lives with other people from around the world, expanding our minds and ability to organize.

The US will try to seize control be first implementing a pay program where you must pay for pretty much all major internet activities (like Facebook or Youtube), or at the very least, provide personal information to use these services so they can track you if you use of for less-desirable means. This method will cut off probably half of peoples' access to most things on the internet, because the very fact it is all free and without arbitrary rules is why so many people use it.

Then the US will focus on closing down a lot of discussion boards and messengers that they can't observe and censor. This will include ATS.

The FCC, or any organization in general, attempting to rule the internet is a blatant act of war on the lower classes, an attempt to limit our freedom to communicate. The Americans are an empire and they wish to control how people think, both domestically and abroad.

They can go to hell before they try to control the internet, though.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
If you'll also notice, the website is down and their proposals cannot be read.
But it's okay folks (sarcasm) nohing to be worried about. Rest easy. Because THEY are looking AT you.

oh, I mean THEY are looking out for you. . . . .



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
This thread, and that particular article, is a perfect example how FUD is effective and even manages to get people to vote and protest against their own interests.

I don’t intend to single anyone out, but this comment is illustrative of how people should inform themselves better:

Originally posted by Surfrat
I believe consumers should be protected by the various federal and state consumer protection services, not the FCC or Congress.

Who do you think creates “federal protection services”? Congress. Who created the FCC? Congress. With what goal?

As specified in section one of the Communications Act as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151) it is the FCC's mission to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."
That sounds like “consumer protection services” to me.
But yeah, please continue believing the “free market takes care of itself” and benefits the consumer. That worked out so well in the finance and banking sector didn’t it?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Imagine a future where the Internet is governed by unelected bureaucrats in Washington, DC, who rule at their own whim, regardless of legislators' demands or judicial rule



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join