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.
Companies unable or unwilling to fork out the cash will find it hard to compete, while customers may see their internet service offered in tiered “bundles,” similar to the way television channels are grouped by cable providers.
Consider Spain and Portugal. Lisbon-based telecommunications firm MEO has been rolling out mobile packages (link in Portuguese) that provide users with data plans limited to specific apps. Customers will be charged more for using data for apps outside the package relative to those in the preferred packages.
originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: cinerama
if this was under Obama, it would be ' Obama to destroy net neutrality'
What does this mean for me?
It depends on which side of this argument you believe.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai gets meme-ified on a protester's sign outside the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC, before Pai's arrival on May 5.
Broadband companies and Pai argue that investment will pour into broadband networks once the rules are lifted. Consumers will have faster access to the internet at a lower cost, they say. For example, advertisers might subsidize wireless or broadband service for customers who click on their advertisements. Broadband companies, which have already begun bundling video services with their internet access to offer consumers a better deal, could even more aggressive in their offers to entice consumers.
But many Democrats, like Senators Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Al Franken of Minnesota, as well as net neutrality advocates argue these potential benefits come at a high a cost. Without rules protecting an open internet, startups could be shut out of the market in favor of bigger players. This will lead to fewer choices and less innovation, which eventually will lead to higher prices and less access to content. In other words, the internet of the future may look more like today's cable TV with your broadband company determining what websites and services you can access.
The reality is likely somewhere in the middle. ...
originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
This article is from May, and I really think consumers will get screwed some how no matter which way this goes.
Lord knows my cable bill gets higher...and HIGHER each year,
What does this mean for me?
It depends on which side of this argument you believe.
Well.. we know one way.. the direction they are trying to go, will certainly lead to those sorts of issues. Bundled, censored-by-pay Internet. But.. the current way MIGHT go that way.. one day.. maybe? It's been running just fine for a long time.. so it's just guesswork that it might change for the worse. I think leaving it alone is the best bet.
originally posted by: swedy13
a reply to: BlackJackal
Haven't we beat this thing like a million times already? It's getting so annoying to see them try sneak it through every year under different names and parties.
originally posted by: Chickensalad
I'd like to see this pinned to the top of the front page until the vote.
originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: cinerama
Yeah keep in mind a sizable portion of this very forum believes Trump and Co's endeavor to destroy Net Neutrality is a good thing and another way to stick it to those Libs!
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Ajit Pai has openly admitted to wanting to scrap net neutrality. What made Trump think this guy was a good fit is beyond me, it's obvious he's in the pockets of the ISP's who are the ones who would benefit the most from ending net neutrality.
No Trump supporters have chimed in yet, I wonder why?