F.C.C. Net Neutrality Rules Clear Hurdle as Republicans Concede to Obama

a reply to: ketsuko

. And, I thought we were imposing rules on it because no one was happy with how it is now ...

Only the Telecom is happy with the current rules (NO NET NEUTRALITY), they were the ones that lobbied to undo net neutrality.

The content providers are not happy, netflix has to pay comcast , timewarner,verizon,att, and every isp in the world to get on the "FAST LANE" keep in mind those FAST LANES are the same lanes they were on before net neutrality was undone. The more true statement is you pay to not be purposely slowed down or in other words extortion.

The consumers, is not fully aware of the damage yet, but they will be the most unhappy bunch in about 5 years when the undoing of net neutrality is fully complete. I believe they could only undo so much at a time. However, with the small amount they undid so far the netflix customers already got a little taste of what is coming.

so if the rules aren't changing anything, then what good are they? They're just going to lock in current conditions no one is happy with.

The rules, is changing something:

Currently Net neutrality does not exist it was undone this year, but has not been fully undone, They have to undo a little bit at a time per the arrangement if I recall correctly.

The rules themselves are not changing what is changing is the reclassifying of the internet IN ORDER to BRING BACK net neutrality PRINCIPLES.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: darkbake
The confusion is by design and they are spending heavy in making sure that people don't realize what net neutrality really is. However, don't think for a minute that the Democrats in office want this. Obama himself is buddy buddy with the Devil himself the comcast CEO that does not want net neutrality.

You bring up some interesting points, I had forgotten how connected Obama himself is to the ISPs (particularly Comcast).

Politicians and conspiracies aside, I am curious as to the motivation for defending this new regulatory power being awarded to an unaccountable group of unelected bureaucrats.

The fix is in, why bother explaining it to the silly conservatives? The citizens of the United States of America have exactly zero say in this.

a reply to: interupt42

So we need 300 pages of regulations to unregulated something?

I wonder what you all think about George Soros funding this.

Link


But aside from all that I find it humorous that ATS, a site and community devoted to truth and yada yada yada, is on board with this (though some here are not obviously). You want the government, the same government you hate for spying, for the police state, and a host of other reasons, to now regulate your internet. You distrust the government when it comes to everything under the sun, but this just escapes that distrust?

its almost as if some people don't really care that we cant even read this thing until its passed, so long as it sticks it to Comcast/TW. And that attitude is more destructive in the long run than what the telecom giants are doing now.

a reply to: ketsuko

Now I'm even more confused.

Maybe the GOP has done to much mental contortion on you or you are choosing to not understand.

None of the politicians want it, and all their big business buddies are telling them not to do it, but big retail has somehow forced them to do it anyhow?

So it's all evil BIg Businesses doing it?

NO. Try to follow

1. The telecom is a large lobbying industry. They have more control and make more money by undoing net neutrality. Hence they don't want net neutrality.

2. The politicians, don't want it because the telecom spent hundreds of millions lobbying for them to NOT want it. Gov't and Telecom corporations also don't want it because the internet is a bidirectional medium where people can organise and share thoughts that go against the main stream ideals.

And the Democrats are all innocent even though they are doing it?

NO the democrats are not innocent in any of this, Obama himself if buddy buddy with the main guy that doesn't want net neutrality.

The Democrats played their part early on and ACTED like they wanted net neutrality but their actions painted a different picture. The Obama administration allowed for open door policy between the FCC and the telecom to continue. Under his administration the FCC head and the Telecom Head swapped positions and magically net neutrality was undone.

Furthermore, the initial suggestions and drafts the Democrats tried to pass as net neutrality was NOT net neutrality. They tried to fool the people.

3. Here is where luck comes in for the consumer:

This turned into a OLIGOPOLY match between the TELECOM Oligopoly versus the ONLINE TECH Oligopoly. Not because the TECH Oligopoly is good or cares for the little consumer but because their business model thrives and DEPENDS on net neutrality.

SO the TECH Oligopoly countered the TELECOM hundreds of millions in lobbying and got the DEMOCRATS to slow down and REALLY pass legislation that is NET NEUTRAL in principle and not the trash they initially tried to pass.

originally posted by: IntroduceALittleIrony
I wonder what you all think about George Soros funding this.

Link


But aside from all that I find it humorous that ATS, a site and community devoted to truth and yada yada yada, is on board with this (though some here are not obviously). You want the government, the same government you hate for spying, for the police state, and a host of other reasons, to now regulate your internet. You distrust the government when it comes to everything under the sun, but this just escapes that distrust?

its almost as if some people don't really care that we cant even read this thing until its passed, so long as it sticks it to Comcast/TW. And that attitude is more destructive in the long run than what the telecom giants are doing now.

I think many of us are truly astonished, I can't explain it.

a reply to: ketsuko

So we need 300 pages of regulations to unregulated something?

No , but unfortunately reclassifying the internet is the only way that we can get back net neutrality.

Ideally I would prefer it would go back to how it was when net neutrality existed but do to our laws that is not possible.

Additionally , as a Libertarian I would be OK with not having net neutrality but we do not have a free market where their is competition in the telecom industry to self regulate.

a reply to: interupt42

Would you be OK with an aggressive rollback of most laws and regulations?

That might make things even better than before 2010.

a reply to: greencmp

The citizens of the United States of America have exactly zero say in this.

unfortunately, you are 100% correct. This is an OLIGOPOLY ping pong match between the Online Tech industries and the Telecom industry. We as consumer can only hope for little collateral damage.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: interupt42

Would you be OK with an aggressive rollback of most laws and regulations?

That might make things even better than before 2010.

Here is my logic:

1. The gov't is out of control with ridiculous amounts of conflict of interests in all areas.

2. Regardless of who is in power (Republicans or Democrats) we get the same things:
World Conflicts, bigger gov't , less privacy, more taxes, less beneficial small business regulations, less consumer friendly regulations.

3. The gov't doesn't draft the laws in this country anymore they just robosign. The laws are drafted by the Oligopoly lobbyist which does not have the best interest of the consumers for the most part.

That is why You get the "we must pass the bill to find out what is in it" , she wasn't kidding. She just robosign it after her lobbying buddies gave her a copy that was drafted by THEIR dream team of lawyers.

So yeah, since our gov't is no longer working for the majority of us (the consumers) I would prefer to shrink gov't , remove the conflicts of interest and corruption potentials that we openly have , then maybe down the road look at the possibility of expanding again.

However that is not going to happen. People are still drinking the koolaid that their party has the answer despite the endless cycle we have been on between the two party system.

So the best and only likely solution that we have, to NOT give power to an already established OLIGOPOLY (TELECOM) with the most dissatisfied customers in any industry is to reclassify the internet.

I'm not happy about it either , but using the GOP campaigns slogan for the last couple of runs i would say its the lesser of the two evils.

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: interupt42

Would you be OK with an aggressive rollback of most laws and regulations?

That might make things even better than before 2010.

Here is my logic:

1. The gov't is out of control with ridiculous amounts of conflict of interests in all areas.

2. Regardless of who is in power (Republicans or Democrats) we get the same things:
World Conflicts, bigger gov't , less privacy, more taxes, less beneficial small business regulations, less consumer friendly regulations.

3. The gov't doesn't draft the laws in this country anymore they just robosign. The laws are drafted by the Oligopoly lobbyist which does not have the best interest of the consumers for the most part.

That is why You get the "we must pass the bill to find out what is in it" , she wasn't kidding she just robosign it after her lobbying buddies gave her a copy that was drafted by their dream team of lawyers.

So yeah, since our gov't is no longer working for the majority of us the consumers I would prefer to shrink gov't , remove the conflicts of interest and corruption potentials that we openly have , then maybe down the road look at the possibility of expanding again.

However, that is not going to happen, people are still drinking the koolaid that their party has the answer despite the endless cycle we have been on between the two party system.

So the best and only likely solution that we have to NOT give power to an already established OLIGOPOLY (TELECOM) with the most dissatisfied customers is to reclassify the internet.

I'm not happy about it either but using the GOP campaigns slogan for the last couple of runs i would say its the lesser of the two evils.

Thanks for the extensive and clearly honest explanation.

As we have agreed, there isn't anything that we can do about it anyway so here is to hoping that it isn't as bad as it seems.

a reply to: interupt42

Lobbyists use the government. If the gvernment had no power, then the lobbyists would have no power.

Whatever is wrong with the internet now is because of gubernment intervention. Big Corps can only screw you because the gpvernment gives them monopolies.

A big corporation only has power as long as customers buy its products, so the big corps are almost never really screwing you, unless the government makes new competition impossible. If any big corp was screwing you, a new provider would show up to get in on the over priced sales.

The government only wants more government. The government is not your friend.

And the name is a lie. Neutrality means no action of any kind. "Net Neutrality" is a lie.

Honest Net Neutrality would be the abolition of all regulations directed at the internet qua internet.

Add "Net Neutrality" to the Orwellian list with War is Peace, Obedience is Freedom, and Regulation is No Action.

a reply to: darkbake

How much does everyone pay for their internet /m? I'm paying $70 for the lowest package DSL. The biggest rip off I've even seen. This is Canada and we only have the top 3 - Bell, Telus, Rogers. No other competition and if anyone tries to start up they just get zapped by lightning and combust into a big ball of fire. Verizon was going to make a deal and come over but backed out. Maybe they got a look at Target's 4th quarter fail and took a hint but damn $70 what a rip. 0's and 1's should be pennies a glass.

a reply to: greencmp

As we have agreed, there isn't anything that we can do about it anyway so here is to hoping that it isn't as bad as it seems.

Yeah, we really don't have any say and competition only happens at the Oligopoly level among opposing industries.

With that said. What gets me going is the people that blindly accept what their party tells them (republicans and democrats alike), because of them we are in a position where the gov't is no longer working for we the people.

If people took of their blinders they would see the GOP and the DNC are just car salesman. Between the two they tell the majority of the people what they want to hear, but if you look at their ACTIONS they both do the same things: bigger gov't, greater taxes, less privacy, more BIG corporate friendly laws, and less consumer friendly laws.

It is my hope that people will eventually open their eyes and see the truth that its not Democrats versus Republicans but rather BIG Corp and Gov't versus the consumer.

The internet is a big player in opening peoples eyes. Just like we are communicating here and challenging each others ideas and looking at things a little different than what the GOP and DNC controlled MSM puts out.

It looks like you are here just like I'm here to see other perspectives in order to get to the truth and not to just reinforce our party loyalty. So a big

Undoing net neutrality principles would stop that. If ATS doesn't go with the MSM viewpoints they could choose to put ATS on the really really slow lane. To the point it would loose its users and its message of going against the grain would be stopped.

Anytime the Republicans are attacking a bill or rabidly supporting it, it's time to take a close look at how big business would be affected by the proposed rule change.

The influence of mega corps within the GOP has become ridiculously obvious.

The Dems aren't much better. My loathing for our government is unbiased.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: interupt42

Lobbyists use the government. If the gvernment had no power, then the lobbyists would have no power.

Whatever is wrong with the internet now is because of gubernment intervention. Big Corps can only screw you because the gpvernment gives them monopolies.

A big corporation only has power as long as customers buy its products, so the big corps are almost never really screwing you, unless the government makes new competition impossible. If any big corp was screwing you, a new provider would show up to get in on the over priced sales.

The government only wants more government. The government is not your friend.

And the name is a lie. Neutrality means no action of any kind. "Net Neutrality" is a lie.

Honest Net Neutrality would be the abolition of all regulations directed at the internet qua internet.

Add "Net Neutrality" to the Orwellian list with War is Peace, Obedience is Freedom, and Regulation is No Action.

All true.

I think it is reasonable to expect increased popular consideration of de facto nullification, even among the Rs and Ds.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

A big corporation only has power as long as customers buy its products, so the big corps are almost never really screwing you,

Not true at all,

Comcast is a BIG SUCCESSFUL corporation and makes billions per quarter. The problem is that Comcast while is very successful it also has the MOST dissatisfied customer of any industry year after year.

So I think we can both safely agree that comcast is part of a telecom Oligopoly that ensures no competition. Hence one of the most if not most hated company in the world, is wildly successful.

customers don't have a choice.

unless the government makes new competition impossible.

2. Not fully true.

Today government does nothing but robosign regulations drafted by the Oligopoly lobbyist dream team of lawyers.

Like I stated in another post:

I love how people always blame the gov't but fail to realize that the gov't doesn't do anything but sign a paper. Let me ask you :

Who do you think is creating bills?

The lobbyist or the congressman?

Before you answer, do you recall the famous line "we must pass the bill to find out what is in it"

So if the laws and regulations are created by the lobbyist why is the gov't bad and the corporations that created those laws and regulations are so efficient and awesome?

You said

he government only wants more government. The government is not your friend.

Agreed, but its not solely the gov't that wants more government. The Oligopoly lobbyists want more government because the more gov;t the more control they also have.

That is why the govt AND the telecom lobbyist undid net neutrality. Net neutrality put to much power on the hands of the people instead of the gov;t or the established Oligopolies.

Net neutrality only passed in the earlier days of the internet when gov't and Oligopolies had no foresight of what the internet was. Once they figured it out they undid it

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: darkbake

How much does everyone pay for their internet /m? I'm paying $70 for the lowest package DSL. The biggest rip off I've even seen. This is Canada and we only have the top 3 - Bell, Telus, Rogers. No other competition and if anyone tries to start up they just get zapped by lightning and combust into a big ball of fire. Verizon was going to make a deal and come over but backed out. Maybe they got a look at Target's 4th quarter fail and took a hint but damn $70 what a rip. 0's and 1's should be pennies a glass.

In the states I have lived in, the cost varies according to how fast you want to pay for, and the supplier is the cable TV company. Typically the low is $20 a month, for 1Mb per second, up to $80 a month for 20Mb per second (which still gets interrupted from time to time, I think from the accessed web site end).

I have always had a mobile internet via cell phone network. Since all of the cell phone companies capped the monthly download to 12MB ( in 2011), I have paid $120 per month for unlimited download from a third party company that leases throughput from Sprint. cyberonic.com... It works better than satellite in the places where it works.

here is soem food for thought. Remember the FCC trying to institute fairness in radio shows? thats EXACTLY what they will do to sites liek ATS. there will have to be a equally represented anti conspiracy side to ensure equal time for each side.

originally posted by: yuppa
here is soem food for thought. Remember the FCC trying to institute fairness in radio shows? thats EXACTLY what they will do to sites liek ATS. there will have to be a equally represented anti conspiracy side to ensure equal time for each side.

Lets say for a moment that you are correct (which you aren't). ATS lets anyone post, there is a large anti conspiracy group of posters here. Putting aside the fact that you clearly don't know what is meant by fairness in that context, the requirement as you phrase it has already been met.