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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
If they pass and telecoms are allowed to move forward with their plans, "the Internet as we know it would cease to exist," Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) concluded in an editorial published by Huffington Post.
"That's why Tuesday is such an important day," he continued. "The FCC will be meeting to discuss those regulations, and we must make sure that its members understand that allowing corporations to control the Internet is simply unacceptable."
For many Americans -- particularly those who live in rural areas -- the future of the Internet lies in mobile services. But the draft Order would effectively permit Internet providers to block lawful content, applications, and devices on mobile Internet connections.
Here's what's most troubling of all. Chairman Genachowski and President Obama -- who nominated him -- have argued convincingly that they support net neutrality.
But grassroots supporters of net neutrality are beginning to wonder if we've been had. Instead of proposing regulations that would truly protect net neutrality, reports indicate that Chairman Genachowski has been calling the CEOs of major Internet corporations seeking their public endorsement of this draft proposal, which would destroy it.
Regarding the pending $30 billion combination of Comcast and NBC Universal, now in its final stages of review by the FCC and Justice Department, Franken expressed concern that the commission might issue its decision during the holidays. "It needs to do this in the light of day, not hidden in the middle of Christmas and New Year's. The American people have a right to know about this merger," Franken said.
I will be supremely disappointed if approval of the merger is slipped through when most of America is unwrapping presents and spending time with their families, not worrying about their cable or Internet bills," he added.
The lawmaker, who reiterated his view that the deal would harm consumers and competition, said some critics have visited his office discreetly to say they're opposed but fear retaliation if they speak out. "That is the definition of a company with too much market share."
Originally posted by thegoodearth
So more gouging likely to pass on Tuesday...
If this passes, everyone should dump their ISP and go with WiFi.
TextFor many Americans -- particularly those who live in rural areas -- the future of the Internet lies in mobile services. But the draft Order would effectively permit Internet providers to block lawful content, applications, and devices on mobile Internet connections.
This Mobile networks like AT&T and Verizon Wireless would be able to shut off your access to content or applications for any reason. For instance, Verizon could prevent you from accessing Google Maps on your phone, forcing you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it costs money to use and isn't nearly as good. Or a mobile provider with a political agenda could prevent you from downloading an app that connects you with the Obama campaign (or, for that matter, a Tea Party group in your area).
It gets worse. The FCC has never before explicitly allowed discrimination on the Internet -- but the draft Order takes a step backwards, merely stating that so-called "paid prioritization" (the creation of a "fast lane" for big corporations who can afford to pay for it) is cause for concern.
Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by MMPI2
nnnnnooooooo, more has not happened under obama
I mean
Patriot Act.
Seriously, just the Patriot Act.
The Obama Administration IP Czar Victoria Espinel has been holding meetings with ISPs, registrars, payment processors and others in a bid to get them to block access to websites “dedicated to infringing activities”. However, as we have documented, the government deems such infringement to include political opinions which are antagonistic toward the state, leaving the door open for state censorship of free speech on the world wide web.
He believes that the Second Amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms. But, he supports reasonable regulations on those rights.
He declined, to take a position on whether the DC gun ban violates the 2nd Amendment.
Originally posted by MMPI2
That stuff was on Drudge this morning.
I think it's interesting that everybody whined about how much the Bush administration tried to "censor" and "erode civil rights."
Now, we have a "progressive/liberal community organizer" in office and more is happening with fascist civil rights erosions in a few months than happened in the previous eight years of the Bush administration.
Originally posted by MMPI2
We're seeing the incrementalism associated with fascism unfold before our eyes.
Originally posted by MMPI2
That stuff was on Drudge this morning.
I think it's interesting that everybody whined about how much the Bush administration tried to "censor" and "erode civil rights."
Now, we have a "progressive/liberal community organizer" in office and more is happening with fascist civil rights erosions in a few months than happened in the previous eight years of the Bush administration.
Barack obama and his hand-picked minions, along with the policies they wish to enact, are contrary to basic American tenets - freedom, liberty, the rule of law, justice.
Let me restate it again for those of you who either do not understand or who do not want to accept the facts:
liberalism = fascism
socialism = NAZI
progressive = fascist
obama = statist/fascist