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.

 

NET NEUTRALITY: A look at your ISP in months to come...

page: 3
84
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I'm not sure how they're going to get people to buy into this service. It's going to start a price war with current providers for a start and it's going to have to offer something vastly superior to what people are getting already. Faster internet speeds dosen't necissarily equate to a better user experience. They may be able to offer more instant TV on demand i guess. But i can't stand watching TV anymore, i rarely bother with it and most couch potatoes would rather sit in the living room than at a computer screen.

Luckily once a technology has been invented, it never goes away entirely so i think that the internet as it stands will still be around for a long time yet. Just look at Blu-Ray, its been knocking around for a few years now but it still hasn't taken hold in the way that DVD's did when they first came out. HD is great quality but i cant say that it packs the same wow factor that DVD's did for me when they first came out. The internet has had an incredibly organic evolution free from the restraints of corparate control and i think that that scares TPTB a lot. Hopefully they will just create a great big stinker that nobody wants and fall flat on their faces as a result of this.
edit on 22-12-2010 by snoochieboochies because: spelling




posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


Yes and I didn't chose my location name lightly three years ago when I joined.

Second line.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
does anybody know some FACTS ? or are you all just delusional and fearmongering ?

The rules seek to uphold a principle called net neutrality, under which Internet service providers are supposed to give equal treatment to all legal Web content on their networks

How can you restrict access / charge money for accesing sites... to uphold a net neutrality
? So what the hell is this discussion about, or am I really missing the elephant in the room ??



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Why would anyone be paying for AOL? It is free with broadband and has been for years. The only need for AOL software that you pay for is if you are using dial up, but dial is nearly gone. I only know one person on it and they can barely check email with it.

Now if it really gets to a point where I have to pay for everything, forget it. I remember the days of having no internet and I can easily just go back to that. I don't have to have this. It's just something to have around. Some can't live without internet but I can.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Really doenst seem all that different to the way the web started.

Internet was around for ages before companies tried to monetise it.
I used to use buletin boards (BBS) on the C64 and Amiga before the rise of the web (Don't know if I actually have to explain it.... but if you were to imagine that each site on the web had its own telephone number, and rather than googling a site you'd dial the telphone number of the BBS and connect via there). Big business and the powers that be of course don't see anyway thse things can make money.
These bulitin boards as it turns DO make money (can't remember his name, but the first bloke to ever put porn online is a very interesting case study!), and the crack down begins (Although to be fair the VAST majority of what you'd find on BBS's was pirated).

With the rise of the web we had big companies like America Online attempting to provide a cut down sanitised version and make their users completely dependant on them to do anything online.
And we all know how that worked out (It didn't work because people realised that they could get a better deal elsewhere, and companies realised they could make more money offering people what they want).

This time round we have companies like Apple and Google thinking they can gain control over the mobile internet and set themselves up as the middlemen between users and content.
The worry thing about it this time around is its backed up by law (The worst thing is that google effectivly sold out their principles when they realised they could get a bigger cut of the pie).
This will work for a few years until the computer savvy population realises they can get a better deal and more content by switching to something else ( I'm predicting Linux tablets, but I could be wrong, usually am
).
Likewise, any laws passed in the US to support this will work for a few years until people realise theres countries who haven't got such short sighted regulations and start operating out of there.

Actions like this only ever affect the sort of people who belive everything they hear and they're beyond saving anyway, they think they're restricting the web, but all they're doing is opening a new frontier for those of us who can actually think!
(And the best thing is, if they push to far we can go back to BBS's, imagine how much better they'll be this time round with speeds above 28k and free phone calls!!!!!!)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


I am in total agreement with your post. I, too, will walk away, even if it means leaving my beloved ATS! : (



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater


I am considering dropping my cell phone afte rmy contrac tis up, too. I am over paying for others to get fat off my dollar, while the consumer gets less and less for that money.


I use prepaid service and that is it. I only need my phone for important calls, other wise everyone knows where to find me. Like I said, I remember life without all these toys and conveniences and it's not really that hard to go back to that. If anything my life was more peaceful back then now that I think of it.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
First and foremost, the FCC does not have the legitimate authority to do what they have started to do. They are running wild like the EPA has been PERMITTED to do. Will they be challenged and stopped?? The battle is not over yet. The new year will ring in new challenges along the party line split.

If greater powers are at play here, this could be lining the US up with what the UN wants to accomplish and our Presidents lacks the stones to stand up to the UN. This greater move to surrender the internet has been in the works for quite sometime.

One step at a time!! Read on for a brief history lesson.

This article is from January 2010


Now for the bad news: In an effort to show the world how inclusive, sharing, cooperative, and international America can be, the Obama administration set off on a plan to surrender control and key management of the Internet by the U.S. Department of Commerce and its agents.

The key to the control America has over the Internet is through the management of the Domain Name System (DNS) and the giant servers that service the Internet.

Domain names are managed through an entity named IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. The IANA, which operates on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is responsible for the global coordination of the DNS, IP addressing, and other Internet protocol resources.

In short, without an IP Address or other essential Internet protocols, a person or entity would not have access to the Internet.

For years, the international community has been pressuring the United States
to surrender its control and management of the Internet. They want an international body such as the United Nations or even the International Telecommunications Union, (an entity that coordinates international telephone communications), to manage all aspects of the Internet in behalf of all nations.

The argument advanced for those seeking international control of the Internet is that the Internet has become such a powerful, pervasive, and a dependent form of international communications, that it would be dangerous and inequitable for any one nation to control and manage it.

Just this past spring, within months of Obama's taking office, his administration, through the Department of Commerce, agreed to relinquish some control over IANA and their governance. The Obama administration has agreed to give greater representation to foreign companies and countries on IANA.

This amounts to one small step for internationalism and one giant leap for surrendering America's control over an invention we have every right and responsibility to control and manage.


www.newsmax.com...

Look out for China!!

Now look back to 2005


An international political spat is brewing over whether the United Nations will seize control of the heart of the Internet.

U.N. bureaucrats and telecommunications ministers from many less-developed nations claim the U.S. government has undue influence over how things run online. Now they want to be the ones in charge.

While the formal proposal from a U.N. working group will be released July 18, it's already clear what it will contain. A preliminary summary of governmental views claims there's a "convergence of views" supporting a new organization to oversee crucial Internet functions, most likely under the aegis of the United Nations or the International Telecommunications Union.


This part is a little chilling. Remember this is from 2005.


At issue is who decides key questions like adding new top-level domains, assigning chunks of numeric Internet addresses, and operating the root servers that keep the Net humming. Other suggested responsibilities for this new organization include Internet surveillance, "consumer protection," and perhaps even the power to tax domain names to pay for "universal access."

This development represents a grave political challenge to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which was birthed by the U.S. government to handle some of those topics.

A recent closed-door meeting in Geneva convened by the U.N.'s Working Group on Internet Governance offers clues about the plot to dethrone ICANN. As these excerpts from a transcript show, dissatisfaction and general-purpose griping is rampant:


Bush snubbed the UN back then and now it looks like the right man is POTUS to get the job done


Those proclamations served to flush out the Bush administration, which recently announced that it will not hand over control of Internet domain names and addresses to anyone else.

That high-profile snub of the United Nations could presage an international showdown. The possibility of a political flap over what has long been an abstruse Net-governance issue casts a shadow over ICANN's meeting this week in Luxembourg, and will be the topic of a July 28 symposium in Washington, D.C., called "Regime Change on the Internet."


Note the mention of China and Brazil


Beyond the usual levers of diplomatic pressure and public kvetching, Brazil and China could choose what amounts to the nuclear option: a fragmented root. That means a new top-level domain would not be approved by ICANN--but would be recognized and used by large portions of the rest of the world. The downside, of course, is that the nuclear option could create a Balkanized Internet where two computers find different Web sites at the same address.


Read more: news.cnet.com...

Now Fast Forward to December 2010. A month that is certainly going to be memorable. Its 2005 all over again and Brazil is back in the drivers seat and China has risen to even greater power.


The United Nations is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet.

Establishment of such a group has the backing of several countries, spearheaded by Brazil.

At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.

The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for a "takeover" of the internet.

www.itnews.com.au...

They want ICANN and US control to go bye bye!! The cogs are moving forward. Slowly at first...



edit on 22-12-2010 by jibeho because: clarity



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
If ISP's do go along with this, it would be good time to own stock in the company that supplies all the cable lines they use. I have a feeling wild animals will love to chew on them.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
FCC should be ashamed of the following behavior...AT&T flavored cupcakes, each one should come with its own sweet surprise in the middle, maybe a check. Cause it appears that this Net Neutrality junk is just another lucrative government-corporate partnership. Privatization at its best! The following from the The Hill and can also be found at the WSJ.


AT&T is treating the Federal Communications Commission to something sweet. Public Knowledge obtained a document that shows the company sent dozens upon dozens of Georgetown Cupcakes to agency personnel this week. The cupcakes are destined for staffers in all parts of the building, including the offices of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and the four commissioners. PK points out that Georgetown Cupcakes are not a cheap buy. They go for $29 per dozen.


reply to post by Thunder heart woman
 


But, when you want information, you will go to the library and find that due to budget reductions, the books that should be there are cut back...but you can go online to find that info, right? Yikes... This is why I am apprehensive about the now ubiquitous personal readers like Kindle. Eventually readership at libraries will dwindle to unmanageable levels and the government will probably privatize them...maybe B&N or Borders will get a no-bid contract! And then, they will only carry the books that meet the bottom line...yeah for Reality TV show books, Harlequin Romances and Bill O'Reilly; so sorry to Orwell, Steinbeck, Chomsky and others...



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianDream420


They better be prepared for a fight...
WE are the people, WE are the internet... so if WE don't want it to change then WHY is it changing??????



It's changing because more money can be made off "We The People". Mo money, mo money, mo money. Greed can only continue until it implode on itself, and it seems we will see that happen because logic don't govern those in power money does.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by jaynkeel
 




...Time to blow the dust of the old c.b. radio and disconnect...


HMMmmmm not a bad idea. we used to use it but Cell phones are smaller and more convenient. I do NOT like the GPS stuck in my phone so TPTB knows where I am. My spouse had to drag me kicking and screaming into using a Cell.

Ran over the first with the tractor and the second with the Dually.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conciliatore
We're Anonymous,we're legion

We never forgive,we never forget, expect us.

The net will stay an area for freedom.

We're in the fight.


With another ddos attack? thanks, thats very usefull... how about someone teaches anonymous to stop using programs made by other people in their "attacks" .. . People might be more concerened if you learnt a thing or two, instead of "download this, and press button"



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Meh I let them losers be and go back to the wild url surfing I did in the good ol days. Restricting people on the net to sites will quickly kill those sites off. The surfer will create or reroute to - new places to be. You can’t compete against open source.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
OR they can just filter the COMPLETE internet via FIREWALLS like China!!!

Eitherway they will NEVER be able to tame the internet like this, its been out for way tooooo long for hackers to not have already established their "Plan B's"!

2011 has a great line of events headed for us!

S+F!!!!



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
My god people. This is about relinquishing US control over the internet. Don't by the Net Neutrality BS/cover. That is just one step in the process. Read the articles in my post further up this page. Open your eyes. Study what was attempted by the UN back in 2005 and look to what is being repeated and actually executed as we speak!!!

My eyes are wide open!! Its all going to change way beyond what anyone has imagined. They were just waiting for the right White House Administration to make it happen.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


Can someone please explain to me what part of this law makes everyone think that they will be screwing us consumers over like this? From what I have read, the intent is to ensure ISP companies are not allowed to modify bandwidth for different sites/protocols. They will be allowed to charge more for higher bandwidth usage, but not for specific sites or protocols. If I am using my internet to check my email a few times a day, I should pay less than someone who downloads 10 movies a day. That is common sense. This law does not allow them to differentiate between which websites are being visited, and they must give equal access to all protocols/websites for each person. That's where the word NEUTRALITY comes in. I am not trying to bash anyone here, but I think the conspiracy theorists need to do a little more research before saying what this bill will and won't do.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
The primary thrust of the bill was that providers could not show favoritism to certain services (greater bandwidth or other modifications to providers service for users viewing certain web sites). If web sites are paying for bandwidth usage, I can't see how this is favorable to corpratism.

The biggest issue I see is that if ISP's move to a new revenue model for some reason, such as the proposed Pay for Specific Access model, there will be a financial interest in NOT expanding bandwidth capabilities. The communications industry will be encouraged to restrain the expansion of data pipelines, to limit supply and inflate prices to increase profits.

We would move from a Quality of Service model to a Desperation of the Consumer model.

Having said that, I am still not sure what the impetus for charging for specifics websites would be, as far as this bill is concerned.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
1. ISP and content providers have control over bandwidth allocation. It makes more Corporate sense to charge more for those who wants more bandwidth while to hell with the losers who uses less.

They exists to make money. Unlike their forefathers whom grew rich while being happy to elicit a dime from the common man, these harvard trained execs were born with a silver spoon in their mouth, and do not understand the ground on which the comman man came from. They only want more wealth, more wealth than they could ever spend for a few more lifetimes.

This unfortunately will only lead to MORE poverty, as the common man has lesser to spend. It is not so easy to claim that a person can simply dump the net and go elsewhere for entertainment. They may be no other form of entertainment for them, an escapism from the daily grind and stress in their environments.

Once upon a fairy taled time, Free to air media exists. No one had to pay for it. Its revenue was generated through advertisers. It served our forefathers well, despite the so called quality. But times had change. A certain portion of mankind had grown greedy, too greedy, - corporations and media artists, such that they want more, while paying everyone else in the industry less.

By wanting more, it needs to come from someone else - the consumers, whom will have only less to spend, resulting in the top getting exceeding rich and those below them getting exceedingly poor. As this cycle of greed and needs grows, the end result will be the mass of poor uprising with hostile anger.

As we mankind hypocritically seek to end poverty, Corporations are actually enhacing poverty instead.


2. Many authoritarian regimes around the world realized that citizens can be controlled and manipulated by their greed - money. Either you pay more for priviledges or you shut the hell up.

Many blue pill addicts simply followed and pay up, unneccessarily as is their right not to, resulting in the creation of a elite class whom have more and a large base of citizens whom had none, not their fault, but the fault of their elected. Thus society becomes segrated into the haves and have not, instead of creating an equal class where ALL men are equal.

The rich grow exceedingly rich and with their power, pay out the elected to perpertrate their hold to wealth, creating laws to protect only themselves, to hell with the middle class and the poor. The elected are only humans, flawed. They too have a family to feed.

Better to agree to the rich, twists laws to their favour, close eyes and gain their confidence, hopefully there will be kickbacks in the form of money or employment later, than to help out the middle class or the poor. This is the political reality EVERYONE must realize, wake up and make that change, or soon, even as we are slaves today, we will only doom our next generations.




edit on 22-12-2010 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
HERE IS WHY you should care. Get ready for this:



You will have to pay extra, just like TV, to get what you want.

You want HBO and Sports on TV? Cable companies have been charging you per package.
You want YouTube and CNN on your internet? You will have to pay extra for those websites.

edit on 21-12-2010 by CanadianDream420 because: (no reason given)


If one is really that concerned then begin by using and supporting projects like these:

freenetproject.org...

dot-p2p.org...

Visa, MasterCard, Pay Pal, Amazon, Apple and friends have already demonstrated that the flow of information is in the hands of corporations. This is just the beginning folks.



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join