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.


Defying the Odds to Save the Internet

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 02:25 PM
A wee bit of possible good news for you all:

It’s rare to see a communications bill that actually serves the public.

But a bill Sen. Jay Rockefeller introduced last week is a direct challenge to the cable cabal that controls video watching and Internet access in the United States.

For that the Consumer Choice in Online Video Act faces tough odds. But Rockefeller’s bill does so much for users and consumers of U.S. media that it deserves everyone’s support.

I hope we can all agree that this is something to support. It's most likely not perfect but much better then:

Gatekeepers have historically stood in the way of open communications. Some of this gatekeeping happened for technical reasons, some for autocratic reasons, but much existed simply because gatekeeping is profitable.

It's difficult now with all the advertizing and tracking and heck knows what, but we can a lease get to want we are looking for with enough patience and persistance.

Good ole corporate americans want:

For most people, the cable company is also the Internet service provider. And that company isn’t keen to see customers use their broadband connections to reach other video providers. Cable has a history of blocking apps that deliver video, imposing unnecessary and pricey limits on the amount of data customers can consume, and favoring their own video content over that of their online rivals.

Policymakers with the power to stop these anti-competitive practices have stood by while gatekeepers created new barriers to video competition, stifling innovation and limiting what users can do with their Internet connections. And Congress hasn’t been willing to challenge the cable cabal.

The bill includes:

Rockefeller’s bill tears down most of the barriers gatekeepers are using to protect their legacy monopolies. And it goes further than that, giving the Federal Communications Commission the power to make rules that guarantee people can access video content via a truly open and competitive network.

The bill notes the substantial First Amendment interest in “promoting a diversity of views” — and in preventing ISPs from discriminating against other content providers.

The bill also includes many findings that regulators and politicians beholden to industry are loath to acknowledge. For example, it states that ISPs’ growing use of data caps “can negatively impact the competitive position of online video distributors and the appeal of their services to consumers.”

The bill also notes that ISPs “have an increased incentive to degrade the delivery of, or block entirely, traffic from the websites of other online video distributors, or speed up or favor” their own content, because “online video distributors pose a threat” to ISPs’ own video businesses.

Rockefeller’s bill makes it illegal for any ISP to “block, degrade, or otherwise impair any content provided by an online video distributor,” and defines such distributors to include anyone from the tiniest nonprofit outlet to online giants like Netflix and Apple.

... and more - take a look at the article for more information.
edit on 19-11-2013 by FyreByrd because: forgot the link

posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 02:42 PM
The internets freedom and privacy is today's taboo prohibition.

Corporations will fight each other to the death over "your rights" and by that we all know that means "their profits".

Its sliding away beneath us all, ultimately it will self destruct just a shadowy glimmer of what made it good. And that's a real shame.

Big business will ruin it if it hasnt already, you the paying customer can't do crap about it.

posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 03:00 PM
The name Rockefeller doesn't bring me much confidence.....
Could there be an alterior motive here?

posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 03:03 PM

The name Rockefeller doesn't bring me much confidence.....
Could there be an alterior motive here?

Always the nay sayer. Read the article and decide for yourself.

posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 03:11 PM
In Britain the government is changing the law so if you want to watch internet porn you have to "opt in" otherwise you cant view it, that's a good thing some of you might say?

Lets look at the bigger picture here, the government wants to regulate and govern the internet. So what is the best way to go about it? it will meet a hell of a lot of resistance to just come out and place a whole set of rules and regulations on it.

So they come up with the idea of blocking porn, not many people will resist as you would probably be labeled a pervert and if you "opt in" I'm in no doubt you will be placed on a list.

Here's the kicker.. Over a period of time all the government will do is make amendments to the regulations they have just made. Resulting eventually in not just porn being blocked, but any websites that damage corporations interests, anti government and then bang!!.. you have a heavily regulated internet.
edit on 19-11-2013 by Horus12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 05:14 PM
reply to post by Horus12

i agree, not that the porn crackdown bothers me at all. if they can censor this, what will be next. A www of furbies with no information, perhaps they should concentrate on the deep web rather than the top level (mostly) legal stuff, perhaps, i dont know what i'm talking about, back to sleep

posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 10:30 PM
Maybe people can get away with it if they promise to cut down on porn and spend more time on Wikipedia studying. That way, we lose the porn but we still might have the internet. Or, we could study porn and make an intellectual documentary out of it National Geographic or Discovery quality eh? I can see all the customs of all cultures throughout the ages, then on to the other animals and finally the insects and plants, I'm sure many have seen the jokes about the phallic cactus and penis plant.
edit on 19/11/2013 by Dragonfly79 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 11:00 PM
reply to post by TKDRL

You have two oligopoly in place that are scrapping for revenue. On one side you have Telecom (Comcast Verizon att ) on the other side you have online tech companies (Google Netflix amazon hulu vudu etc) .

The tech companies needs and wants unlimited ,fast,cheap ,and reliable internet for everyone and everything in order to continue growing . On the opposing corner the existing Telecom business models does not encourage those things.

The good news is Google will most likely go full force with Google fiber if the ISP oligopoly pushes caps to a point that users question if they should get ads from sites if they are paying for each bit of data. Google is not getting. Into the ISP business because they aren't evil but because the existing ISP trend will impact their revenue .

Most likely that bill is being pushed by some of the online giant.

apperently true competition is at the oligoply level-
edit on 19-11-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 11:35 PM

reply to post by TKDRL

You have two oligopoly in place that are scrapping for revenue. On one side you have Telecom (Comcast Verizon att ) on the other side you have online tech companies (Google Netflix amazon hulu vudu etc) .

You are absolutely correct and explained it well - so, in your opinion - which is better for us?

posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 11:54 PM
reply to post by FyreByrd

IMO Google business model is more consumer friendl

As it stands now google is not getting into the ISP business because it wants to make money as an ISP.

They are getting to the ISP business because the existing Oligopoly that is in place by the major fast speed internet providers is impacting googles bottom line. Google can actually take a loss as an ISP and make more money in the long run due to ad revenues over media content delivered over the internet.

The faster the internet, the more reliable the internet, the more bandwidth, the more devices, the more content is on the internet equates to more money for google.

Unlike google comcast doesn't stand to benefit as much as google by providing cheap,reliable,fast ,uncapped service.

So it is in Googles best interest for the consumer to have cheap,reliable,fast,uncapped service in order to increase its bottomeline. In comcasts case providing cheap , fast,reliable, uncapped internet actually cuts into their bottom line.

Google is not doing it because its not evil or wants to help out the consumer, its doing it because they stand to make more money. However, It just so happens that Googles business model is friendlier for the consumer than the existing ISP business model implemented by Comcast.

posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 12:34 AM
Draft of the bill here:

Will comment when I've finished reading it...

posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 01:21 AM
I support this bill, but make note of the following:

EXEMPTION.—The Commission may exempt an Internet service provider serving 20,000 or fewer sub-scribers from the requirements of this section

It could be the case that large ISP's will fragment, as to gain the above exemption from shaping bandwidth, and data usage monitoring compliance...

Of course this is only a bill, the Act will no doubt have a number of changes.

posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 01:25 PM
reply to post by cartenz

Thank you for the link and the brief opinion. The exception is a fairly common one designed to protect small business (LOL - under 50 employess, under XX million in revenue) and in this case 20,000 subscribers would be considered in that class. We human people tend to think of a small business as a local handyman or plumber, maybe a small retail store (do they even exist anymore) and the like - but corporate citizens have a different definition.

Again, Thank You.

posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 12:39 PM
Google Fiber Africa:

Comcast cable $100 , Comcast Internet $80 , Telling Comcrapstic that I'm canceling all services and switching to Google Fiber: PRICELESS. ;-)

edit on 21-11-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:19 PM
reply to post by interupt42

I wonder if they plan to come to canada. Up here it is rogers and bell, they "own" the infrastructure, and hold monopoly over the internet. Prices are outrageous, costs more than twice what I paid for cablevision high speed cable, and less than half as fast, plus you only get limited bandwidth a month. This was the deep country part of NY too, I hear the city prices were even better.

posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:01 PM
reply to post by TKDRL

There is a good chance that if the telecom Oligopoly doesn't start playing nice with the consumers and beef up their infrastructure than you will see Google Fiber go full force around the world.

Google wants you , everybody and every device to have fast,cheap,un limited, and reliable internet because it makes them money.

However, I think they picked Africa because that is the next outsourcing hub for global corporations.

The us just gave them billions to fix their power grid. When I worked for a 3 letter mega corp one of my last task before I jumped ship was to design and overlook solutions outsourced to Africa. Internally it appeared to me that they were making a big push for Africa.

new topics

top topics


log in