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 approves plan to regulate Internet

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint


wow, Soros is funding wikileaks and has his own
stooge at the FCC to pass this net censorship.

Soros supplied the problem (wikileaks)
and the solution (net censorship, FCC)

how convenient


Boondock....if true, that is an evil diabolical plan! Have I missed seeing the proof of the Soros-WikiLeaks connection? I did not know this. Can you show me where this has been proven or at least something that shows it as being probable? Thanks.




posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alethea
Boondock....if true, that is an evil diabolical plan! Have I missed seeing the proof of the Soros-WikiLeaks connection? I did not know this. Can you show me where this has been proven or at least something that shows it as being probable? Thanks.


read the link in my sig,
there's 54 pages of evidence
linking soros to wikileaks and now
the FCC.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I think the ATS owners should comment on this subject and its implications for ATS.

I have been posting on threads about “net neutrality,” and it’s patently clear that there’s huge misinformation and disinformation regarding what net neutrality is really about and how it differs from what the FCC has approved.


The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday approved a plan to regulate the Internet despite warnings that it could strangle industry investment and damage an economy that is still struggling to recover.
The 3-2 vote fell along partisan lines with Democrats capitalizing on their numerical advantage.

The article is completely misleading, but I wasn’t expecting anything else from Fox News. Don’t believe the FUD or let them play the partisan divide, people. What the FCC approved benefits the corporate interests, the huge providers that met multiple times with ‘regulators’ the months preceding this vote. They probably wrote this plan.

This is not a matter where Democrats won and Republicans lost. No, the people lost and, once again, the megacorporations won.



The rules would prohibit phone and cable companies from abusing their control over broadband connections to discriminate against rival content or services, such as Internet phone calls or online video, or play favorites with Web traffic.

That would be the goal of net neutrality, but as I’ve pointed out, ad nauseam, that’s not what the FCC approved.

Read here an open letter signed by more than 80 grassroots organizations, consumer groups, civil rights organizations, innovative businesses, technology experts and public interest advocates, that addresses all the shortcomings (and dangers) of what was actually approved.



edit on 21-12-2010 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I don't see anything in that article that suggests we are going to lose the freedom of the Internet... only that we may have to pay more for the privilege in the future.

Way too many tinfoil hats in here...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
Fox is calling it a coup by the FCC

www.foxnews.com...

Of course they are. Do you expect anything different out of faux news, fearmongers of the air waves?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


This is no different than using the Patriot Act for criminals rather than what it was "meant" for. Same concept. Pass sweeping laws for one reason, then turn around and find another "use" or "meaning" in the law. In my opinion, of course.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by dialecticchaos77
This is no different than using the Patriot Act for criminals rather than what it was "meant" for. Same concept. Pass sweeping laws for one reason, then turn around and find another "use" or "meaning" in the law. In my opinion, of course.

I concur with that assessment.
there's always an alternate
agenda. If apples had cyanide
in them would you still eat them ???



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrowGoGoVic, I hope your right. My hope is that because the internet is so big true censorship could never imposed at once. But what they can do is make it harder for us to promote our discussions free of charge. I'm convinced that they cant afford to let these types of sites exist. Every day more questions are being asked by more people. They didn't have this problem of instant, worldwide sharing of information until 90's, really. In the past it was possible to steer the perception of the american public. This internet thing has to really be a challenge because who could have seen it coming? I'll bet a lot of money that this website is in the top five of those most hated by the perps of 9/11. If I were them I would want to shut me up.
 



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


Well said HBT.
Life before the net, how well, simple.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Well I haven't read the FCC's regulations, as I suspect most here haven't, so I'm in no position to draw an overall conclusion, but I didn't see anything in the OP article that mentioned regulation of content.

I remember reading about these issues about 9yrs ago (I suspect in something by Lawrence Lessig) & discussing the possibilities. The concern was that emerging tech would allow ISPs to use package switching ware to analyse content & slow or block particular data. This brings up the issue of who owns the ISPs & what business deals they can enter into with content providers. Of particular concern was the example of US cable tv companies which had been granted (I think, temporary) exemption from laws which prohibited the same companies from owning both content & the means of distribution in an effort to prevent monopolistic practices in media. Like Anti-Trust law for info. The reason for the exemption was to allow such companies to make a reasonable profit from investment in infrastructure. Then I came across this in the OP article:

Burdensome net neutrality rules, they warn, would discourage broadband providers from continuing those upgrades by making it difficult for them to earn a healthy return on their investments.
Ok. So unless broadband providers are allowed to be prejudicial, they cant make a "healthy return", eh? Hmmm... Not a very Free Market oriented POV. Strange that the 2 republicans would vote against the regs then.

Hey ho. How has US cable tv worked out? Do Americans have a good choice of providers & content? Is the whole thing controlled by a few big players that slowly but surely absorb or crush any new small companies that show signs of gaining market share, basically operating as a de facto cartel? You know, like er... every other big business ever in the entire world that manages to engineer some protection from competition...
Personally, the very idea of "Murdoch International Broadband Services" scares me more than the US Govt poking its nose in.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


Tinfoil hats uh?
Every piece of control issues had to begin somewhere. I believe this is one of those. If you do not then thats fine but refrain from the derogatory name calling just because you'd prefer to sit back and dismiss it.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
What blows me away , Obama saying that this would help eliminate conspiracy theories and absurd rumors??

That has got to be the most ignorant and stupid thing that he has ever said publicly.. What he thinks he means, is that this would help the government further control propaganda streams... But this is an even more absurd thing than his original statement... Because it won't help him cover up his lies because they already are quite transparent to the free thinking world...

Once obama hits the highway in 2012 hopefully we can repeal all of his marxist mandates just like a lot of states are doing repealing his Cuban healthcare abortion



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by alienreality
 


ATS did a story on Obama's desire to rid conspiracy's altogether. Conspiracys place what the gov does not want you to know at odds with the role & mission of covert government and that to them is a problem.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 
I think this is an important issue that needs discussing, but I also agree with FM that there seems to be a fair bit of TFHery emerging. As someone else said, I'd be interested to hear from ATS owners & upper echelon staff what they think.

The foot in the door argument is valid I believe. We've seen the same kind of thing lead from liquor licensing to prohibition. Still, we have also learned some lessons from such stupidity. Just as irl, if someone sticks a foot in your door & that becomes a nuisance, you can stamp on it...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Do internet Service Providers need regulated, from where Proto sits and I have wasted hundreds of hours argueing with them on the phone regarding contract law and the sanctity of contracts and filing suits against them because they really don't care, they really need regulated very badly.



Just because you had a bad experience with an ISP you desire regulation for all? Why dont you change providers instead? Its normally no hassle at all.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


Good line of thought. But when that foot belongs to the fedgov, it best be more than a simple stomp.

This opens up a deep path to limiting the information flow and the quality of information. Irregardless of what this initial statement says, it will allow those agencys in the event of an emergency or crisis such as 911 to "regulate" traffic over the internet and limit what you could possibly learn about anything related.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
When are some of you going to learn the government is NOT the answer.
The government has no business and no authority to regulate the internet regardless of what some political hack says whether it's a politician or a judge.

This goes much further than just the internet however. The government has intruded into our lives almost in every aspect possible without the authority to do so. Everything from regulating healthcare to food. For us in the U.S., the Constitution clearly spells out the authority of the federal government but unfortunately it is being ignored.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


What a nightmare Proto, contracts don't mean anything in this day and age, you have to be a New York lawyer to even begin to understand these contracts, as you know they are always in their favor, sure they didn't expect someone like you to come along and enforce their ridiculous contract, good for you for not letting them get away with it.

I am sure most people just go along feeling they have no alternative, you should start a business helping people get their contracts enforced.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Do internet Service Providers need regulated, from where Proto sits and I have wasted hundreds of hours argueing with them on the phone regarding contract law and the sanctity of contracts and filing suits against them because they really don't care, they really need regulated very badly.



Just because you had a bad experience with an ISP you desire regulation for all? Why dont you change providers instead? Its normally no hassle at all.


A. Because I am Caesar!
B. Because with very few exceptions no one posting on this thread obviously has read what this legislation is about.

So far the only person posting to this thread who has any grasp of this issue is Bunken Drum. But then again us drummers are usually ahead of the curve.

Now for anyone who actually cares to do a little research what has now happened is Internet Service Providers have distinctly been broken into two groups:

1. Land Lines
2. Wireless Lines

What has essentialy happened is now these companies can not limit bandwidth for competing companies applications.

If...and this is a big if they have a competing application.

Example: Amazon rents download TV Shows, Sprint rents download TV Shows, Sprint can no longer allow maximum bandwidth for downloading TV Shows from Sprint but limit the bandwidth of people using Sprint to download TV Shows from Amazon.

Now the bad part of this legislation is lets say AT & T does not rent TV Shows and offers no similiar application. It can continue to limit bandwidth to AT & T Customers using Amazon for TV Downloads...but there is a caveat...

Amazon can now "Pay" AT & T an extra fee to not limit the bandwidth connection to it's site.

People are simply letting a few people tie in other conspiracies they are promoting to this one.

Now how can this hurt a company like say ATS, answer AT & T does not have a alternative news and conspiracy site, and AT & T decides to limit the bandwith to ATS and God Like Productions, however God Like Productions contacts AT & T and offers to pay the fee to have AT & T 'not limit' bandwitdh for AT & T Customers visiting God Like Productions, as a result AT & T Customers can blaze through God Like Poductions pages, while AT & T Customers visiting ATS are having pages load slowly like they are on dial up instead of Broad Band, that's the loop hole in the law.

The law is actually not designed to censor the net, but to prevent internet providers like Sprint and Verizon and Comcast etc, etc, from creating an ideal surfing and downloading environment for their own apps, while making it tedious to use competitor apps, offering the same type of service by limiting the bandwidth to competitor apps.

Because of differences in technology between Land Line providers and Wireless Providers, Wireless Providers are being given incremental leeway in the application of the new law.

In NO WAY does the new law censor the Internet, what it does is PREVENT internet service prodivers from controlling the speed of your Internet experience to make some sites more accessible to you than others.

Now evidently it was easier for Proto to get a new law enacted than to switch service providers, and more important because my service provider seemed to think for some strange reason I am not Caesar!

Now I warned my Internet Service Provider in the strongest possible language there would be a price to pay for failing to acquiecse and submit.

So if you want to cry to someone cry to Sprint, sign a contract with Proto and he expects you to fulfill it to the letter!


edit on 21/12/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Thankyou for reading and explaining to these paranoid conspiracy theorists! I mean come on people, all it took was a little reading instead of just guessing. Not all regulations are bad!




top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join