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: 6
84
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


I really don't care either way. If you think about how copyright content gets passed around freely (movies, tv-shows, music, documentaries, etc...), people should have known that there is a consequence to pirating (stealing). As a result of shows and music being passed around through torrents, the loss in potential future revenue is mind boggling. Its affects on the music and movie industry are staggering.

Yeah, the internet is free, but its freedom comes at a price. Music, movies, tv-shows, art, games, etc... All industries have suffered from copyrights being stolen, content being manipulated (youtube), content being passed along freely (no one paying), and many-many other damaging affects.

Look at those YouTube files people link to this site. How many of them have clips from documentaries that are owned by The History Channel, Discovery Channel, and Science Channel? Before the internet was in our lives, people would have to pay BIG money in order to use those properties.

All the free stuff that is being pirated (stolen) online costs something. Sure, I will need to pay more for my internet usage, so that my work can be seen by a company. However, I will feel more comfortable knowing that 'my property' is protected, and people will actually be force to pay for what they use.

I did not put in long hours to obtain an education, so I can make a product in which someone can pass along for free. I want to be paid for my time, efforts, and knowledge. I want to get an hourly wage, and I want to make a profit. If the company I work for starts losing money to online pirating (stealing), the owners of the company will close up shop due to a lack of profit.

Do you think that is fair?

edit on 22-12-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

I did not put in long hours to obtain an education, so I can make a product in which someone can pass along for free. I want to be paid for my time, efforts, and knowledge. I want to get an hourly wage, and I want to make a profit. If the company I work for starts losing money to online pirating (stealing), the owners of the company will close up shop due to a lack of profit


Make it worth paying for. That's all I got to say.
I make lots of music, I have a CD.. It's not the best, but I have it. I spent endless money on guitars, strings, equipment and never got anything back except free beer when I play.. If it's super good, people will buy it.

youtube.com...


^
^
Shameless self promotion.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


Yes I think that is fair, out with the old, in with the new. People will be creative enough and computers good enough to make quality home productions possible. I don't feel bad for crap hollywood's and big record label's deaths. Good riddance.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


Well I think the linux crowd and the amateurs out there offer a better product then, because I don't have to pay an arm and a leg for it. Funny, I don't really miss cable I've found other things to do, and if I want to listen to music I can listen to street performers downtown who'll do it for tips. It cost you nothing to make copies after it's been produced, and we are tired of watching an artist sell 10 million records for having only 1 hit song, where they make 100 million dollars, and maybe only invested $100k for recording it. Sorry there should be caps on how astronomical profits can get. The market responds by making amateurs produce better quality stuff that competes with your stuff. Most will offer it for free just to make advertising revenue. I don't see any starving artists in that crowd. Out with the old and in with the new.

If you do art to make hordes of money then you chose the wrong career, most people do artistic things to enrich society. That is the only artistic venture that I'd ever support. If someone does it and gets lots of money but doesn't care what they get back, they get my support. If I like their music then I'm buying their cd.

But if I feel like listening to a metallica tune, I'll happily just download it because they are evil freaks who are already filthy rich griping about a little spilled milk -- and I hate whiners like that; they should be happy with the hand they've been dealt in life.
edit on 22-12-2010 by stealthc because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


This is my nightmare. Every word in the OP's image is insulting and scary. If this happens, it will effect all of the internet. business is built on the shoulders of open access. The fine print says you can *ask* permission for full internet access, what we all get rightnow, however it adds that access to illegal material is not allowed... this may seem like a good thing, but I assure you it's very scary. This small statement describes an internet where every last web page you see is not only analysed, but scrutinized. Say you get tricked (rock rolled), or even just click on something out of curiosity or research, the next morning you're arrested and your picture's smeared all over the media.

Real nightmare.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
watch this append, the blocking of msn, youtube and all is nothing but a switcharoo... While people are freaking to the idea of having pay-per-site or pay-per-usage idea the other hand is implementing draconian tracking and sniffing systems... and then they'll come up saying

"Well.... we dropped the idea of pay-per-site but still implemented a couple security mesures to protect all of you from the evil taliban hackers hiding into the desert with 1990's laptops..."

And people will shut up thinking they won... I work for a major ISP in Canada and I'm not supposed to talk about this but Bell is implementing and putting in place a "pay per use" system and its coming very soon... You'll pay per GBs and EVEN IF someone tap in your wifi and download 25 movies your responsible because it shows as if its coming from your house... They'll just answer to you "We're sorry sir/ma'am but please understand we only provide the medium to access the internet and the security of your network is your responsibility... Its like if you don't lock the doors to your car and you get your radio stolen... its your fault..."



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
or let's say a hacker uses your computer to do something, and you permanently lose the asked for priviledge to freely access the web because of it? I don't think that's such a smart idea, you'll make it real easy for the system to manufacture the excuse it needs to get you off the net, in order to shut it down and rebuild it in their tyrannical image.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by stealthc
or let's say a hacker uses your computer to do something, and you permanently lose the asked for priviledge to freely access the web because of it? I don't think that's such a smart idea, you'll make it real easy for the system to manufacture the excuse it needs to get you off the net, in order to shut it down and rebuild it in their tyrannical image.


Well if they implement something that can "make you lose priviledge" to access the net the answer is simple... Lets start making virus that are stealth and auto-multiply and launch random attacks when hundreds of thousands of people per week lose internet access the economic downfall will wreck havoc and they will have to revert back to the old system... It'll scare the sh!t out of them...



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


Lies, i work for a telephone company, a small one, and i see the pressure from the bigger entities., its all lies, its all about control. If anyone in here has ever been in a telco central office, and see what tptb have invested in our survellence, you would understand. Its disgusting.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
Well This is a start. Now that they have taken that first inch they will not stop.


While a disagree with a dumb-@ss pronouncement that capitalism is a panacea of some sort, I do believe that it will work its magic this time.

There is tons of bandwidth in this country. A smart person would buy lots of dark fiber and charge a flat fee for all. And become a billionaire in the process.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I think right now would be a good time to implement a "underground" VPN for all of us... this can be encrypted with very high security and provide us a safe haven in case SHTF.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
If it's super good, people will buy it.

youtube.com...


Are you like seriously inspired by "THE PAPARAZZI"?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


This has nothing to do with piracy. On the contrary piracy is extremely profitable. They can still make big buck by ALLOWING piracy and milking everyone for what they are worth through lawsuit's and fines.

It's the similar in nature to prohibition, if not the same.

It's about making people pay more, and controlling the flow of information, not that Inceception movie you just finished downloading a few minutes ago.
edit on 22-12-2010 by Scarcer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by _R4t_
I think right now would be a good time to implement a "underground" VPN for all of us... this can be encrypted with very high security and provide us a safe haven in case SHTF.


It has been done. You can easily find it on the Web using a little smarts and imagination.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by _R4t_
 

Thats exactly what i was thinking...



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
Well This is a start. Now that they have taken that first inch they will not stop.


While a disagree with a dumb-@ss pronouncement that capitalism is a panacea of some sort, I do believe that it will work its magic this time.

There is tons of bandwidth in this country. A smart person would buy lots of dark fiber and charge a flat fee for all. And become a billionaire in the process.


You think its that easy??? You'll have to go through T1 ISPs and they will push you out of business... The company I work for is competing Bell I cannot give much detail due to the non-disclosure contract I signed... But I can tell you that we "have" to go through Bell and Bell is intentionally causing outages, applying updates without warning us so we can't communicate possible downtime to clients. 10-15 times a week we'll hear that a Bell guy when to fix the line and since he left the internet isn't working than when they call Bell they get told "Well you don't have your internet with us... we can't help you with that... it wouldn't happen if your internet would be with us we could fix it..." and you wouldn't believe how many people fall for that... We have multiple DSL platform one being re-selling for Bell and another being totally owned by us... The Bell one we have 1 single tool to verify line CAP, Attennuation or noise and stuff... the tool is down 3-4 times a day from our side but if you contact Bell you get told "No no... everything's working fine..." We connect to it directly on their site which is hosted by them too...

They will give you soo much sh!t you will be forced out of business or will simply quit because you can't take it anymore... I've seen stuff from certain ISP that was done voluntary and is nothing more than stealing... literal stealing... "network charges" as an example are charged on your bill just because TELCO can get away with it... the CRTC didn't look into it yet... but thing about it... "your paying to access the network for a service your already paying to use... doesn't that ring you a bell???"

Caller-ID that you pay 8$ a month for is a feature already embedded/included into the PSTN switch they charge you for it when it SHOULD come included with the line that you are already using and paying for... it cost nothing more to them AT ALL!

I've even seen cases were people were having 10$/min charges applied to their bill some were as high as 200$ and we were told to keep customer responsible and tell them it was a virus "war dialer" that some hacker created and was dialing "SPECIFICALLY and ONLY" through the company's satellite phone access and to keep them responsible for the charge UNTIL they start to talk about taking us to court if they did we could credit it and appologize... if not we had to stick to the "sorry you have caught a virus and its your responsibility to clean your computer" excuse and charge them... hundreds of people paid I'm a first hand witness I used to have to give them the virus excuse....


You have NO CLUE of how TELCO's are dirty... NONE what so ever man...



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
This will backfire. Millions of net users, like me, will simply walk away if these type of money grubbing tactics come into play. Big Business already makes me sick, I will be damned if they get a single extra penny out of me for using the web.

We will see an upsurge in magazines and book sales, once they start rolling on the greed.

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.


In theory you are correct, in practice, no one is walking away.

Do you like Fantasy Football? You'll pay to play.

Do you play Fantasy Football and like to look into what the players performance is like? You'll pay extra to go to NFL.com or ESPN.com to find out.

Like shopping on line? You'll pay extra

Pay bills online? You'll pay extra

New online? You will pay extra to get the same MSM news we can't stand anyway.

Like Alternative New sites? You'll pay extra unless they get forced out which is in my opinion part of the plan. They want alternative news sites shut down, thisbill will help accomplish that goal.

Like ATS? My guess is this site is at the top of the list to be shut down. Anyone else remember when some of our members and their post was put into that paper describing them as home grown extremist?

The days of the net are numbered, enjoy it while you can. Pretty soon we (free thinkers) will be back in the 70's, 80's and early 90's as far as looking for information. Too bad the masses were too damn stupid to understand exactly what this meant. Now their voices and all dissenting voices will not be heard.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com...


8:52 p.m. | Updated Want to watch hours of YouTube videos or sort through Facebook photos on the computer? Your Internet providers would be forbidden from blocking you under rules approved by the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday. But if you want to do the same on your cellphone, you may not have the same protections.

The debate over the rules, intended to preserve open access to the Internet, seems to have resulted in a classic Washington solution — the kind that pleases no one on either side of the issue. Verizon and other service providers would prefer no government involvement. Public interest advocates think the rules stop far short of ensuring free speech. Some Republicans believe the rules are another instance of government overreach.



I skimmed through the thread a little and didn't see a link and assume noone posted it because everyone is still talking about how they don't want this to happen.

In short, the FCC passed a regulation stating hardwired companies (comcast, time warner etc etc) cannot charge for visiting specific websites.

This is a good step in the right direciton I think.

P.S. This is my first post on the forums so if I did something wrong... whoops. >.>
edit on 22-12-2010 by gabbermatt because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
This is just the first step in what they really want to happen. They really don't want us to have the internet at all (except possibly to buy stuff, hence they make money.) As far as the rest of the internet, what they are trying to do here, is frustrate everyone into just dropping out of the web. They will make you pay for this and that and just like TV channels, when times get tough like ...oh...I dont know... a recession or a depression, people will opt out of many of the channels because they cant afford them. many will opt out altogether and take to reading books or playing games, but rest assured, the free flow of pertinent information regarding the government and it's wrong doings will be no more. At least on the internet. They are trying to force people away from the internet by making it a place that's not so pleasant to be because it costs too much. Even if you can pay, the content will be heavily monitored and filtered and you will be paying for more media lies and propaganda but will not recieve the truth. The internet is soon to be just another digital shopping center and lying media kennel and nothing more.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 

If you did some research, you would have noticed the following.
Passage of Net Neutrality Laws

The second is that nobody can block “lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices,” on broadband Internet. The standards are somewhat lower for mobile broadband Internet, however, and only lay down that nobody can “block consumers from accessing lawful websites,” and nobody can “block applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services.”

The third rule states that nobody “engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service,” can “unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service.”

...

It adds, however, that this openness also “promotes competition,” and “broadband providers have taken actions that endanger the Internet’s openness by blocking or degrading disfavored content and applications without disclosing their practices to consumers.”

The internet is still a free and open market. Competition will drive down the prices.

This is the one that ticks me off...

People who use the Internet for things such as gaming, entertainment, and artistic and social expression “will be denied the full benefits of the Internet,” Schwartzman said.


edit on 22-12-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)


Thanks for bringing up the 'fine print' that blue pill addicts often missed.

What is 'lawful' content? Content that praises or agree with the shadow authoritarians that rule over us slaves? Anything else that they do not agree with is 'unlawful' content?

Already with the Wikileaks affair, they had shown that they are willing to go that far to deny access, to hack, or use others to stop that site from operating or may even be building up laws to stop contents that are detrimental to Tyranny.

Hell! Americans hate Communism aka USSR and China CCP, and yet FCC is nothing more than the regulatory arm of Dictatorships and yet such 'laws' are allowed to be passed?

Heck! Why bother sending our courageous youths to teach lil' kim of North Korea a lesson, to die there, when a lil' Kim exists right in every Western govt, doing exactly what lil' kim had done for decades since the time of his father?

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



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join