This net neutrality move seems a good thing.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Depends on how much and in what ways they control it I guess. Generally I think people who are pro net neutrality enjoy the idea of Trump's government not removing net neutrality.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

No I am saying we already control information and the Internet is the last place to be able to find it yourself.

Now you may be forced to watch msnbc because it's the only news website that streams properly.

These are examples of how things could go wrong.

Can you give some as to how this will help?

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Oh so it's partisan schlock? Gotcha. Moving on.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Wardaddy454

No I am saying we already control information and the Internet is the last place to be able to find it yourself.

Now you may be forced to watch msnbc because it's the only news website that streams properly.

These are examples of how things could go wrong.

Can you give some as to how this will help?

May? So you don't know for certain. Are you fear mongering?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Oh so it's partisan schlock? Gotcha. Moving on.

Says one of the most partisan people on the website..

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Nope.

Just aware of reality.

Can you explain how this is a good thing? How it will help the flow of information and not create more censorship?

Or are you just trolling?

Giving money hungry corporations control of things always helps the average person. hahahaha

a reply to: ScepticScot

The argument that government regulation is never the answer is the one that is absurd.

No one made that argument.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

The parallel is cable tv. In the beginning it was 24 hour, cheap and commercial free. Grew into a megalith with fifteen hundred channels, at one basic flat fee.

Then they divided access into tiered packages; the most information , the most channels, unedited movies (commercial free) are the most expensive.

Heres the future ATS after net neutrality.

I'm sorry your cable service does not support access to this channel (click okay to upgrade).

Then you buy access at a higher tiered package and now you can watch it, but can't skip ads. When you try to comment though, on screen message will say, We're sorry, comments are disabled at this service level (click okay to upgrade).

Now you're paying the highest monthly fee to run full speed, skip ads and comment (like what you enjoy now). The difference right now between the lowest or basic package on cable tv and the highest tier is hundreds of dollars a month.

If you can afford that you can have full internet access and discuss issues with the other fifty members on ATS, the only ones left.

Essentially it eventually means the end of free speech, censorship and full ads restored, except for those who can pay the most money per month, just like cable tv is now.

Poor people can buy a newspaper or hear the official narrative on radio and Tv.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: nwtrucker

Again would it be OK with you to stall your Internet because of an opposing idea and say block certain cites all together? Is that freedom.

How abut if you can only visit msnbc?

Again my internet has been stalled.

As far as all certain cities goes, can be done now. DHS likely could right now.

The fears, even hysteria, on this subject is already occurring or could occur no matter what 'regulations', rules or freedoms apply.

So tell me...AM I WRONG ON THIS POINT??? Somebody please answer this point.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Wardaddy454

The parallel is cable tv. In the beginning it was 24 hour, cheap and commercial free. Grew into a megalith with fifteen hundred channels, at one basic flat fee.

Then they divided access into tiered packages; the most information , the most channels, unedited movies (commercial free) are the most expensive.

Heres the future ATS after net neutrality.

I'm sorry your cable service does not support access to this channel (click okay to upgrade).

Then you buy access at a higher tiered package and now you can watch it, but can't skip ads. When you try to comment thought, on screen message will say, We're sorry comments are disabled at this service level (click okay to upgrade).

Now you're paying the highest monthly fee to run full speed, skip ads and comment (like what you enjoy now). The difference right now between the lowest or basic package on cable tv and the highest tier is hundreds of dollars a month.

If you can afford that you can have full internet access and discuss issues with the other fifty members on ATS, the only ones left.

Essentially it eventually means the end of free speech, censorship and full ads are restored, except for those who can pay the most money per month, just like cable tv is now.

Poor people can buy a newspaper or hear the official narrative on radio ad Tv.

The end of free speech....Hmmm. Are we talking 'free' as in no cost? Or are we talking 'free' as in the right/choice?

Does this stop speech? I think not. 'Free/no cost is short lived. The homesteaders who received free land sold it dearly. To wit, no longer without cost.

That's reality.

It will be/is no different here, I'd bet.

It isn't a life-ending event. Relax....

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: nwtrucker

Again would it be OK with you to stall your Internet because of an opposing idea and say block certain cites all together? Is that freedom.

How abut if you can only visit msnbc?

Again my internet has been stalled.

As far as all certain cities goes, can be done now. DHS likely could right now.

The fears, even hysteria, on this subject is already occurring or could occur no matter what 'regulations', rules or freedoms apply.

So tell me...AM I WRONG ON THIS POINT??? Somebody please answer this point.

Yah, remember when the Benghazi embassy got attacked and the fake muslim video was blamed? Access on youtube to that video was blocked in Afghanistan because the US is engaged militarily there and didn't want the troops to get attacked over it.

As far as blocking generally, Mainland China blocks a ton of internet...

Wiki

a reply to: nwtrucker

The end of free speech....Hmmm. Are we talking 'free' as in no cost? Or are we talking 'free' as in the right/choice?

"We're sorry, comment section is disabled at your current subscriber level (Click here to upgrade)."

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: nwtrucker

I already looked over that thread. Do you know how many times the United Nations are referred to on that page? None. There are a number of instances in the page, where the letter U precedes the letter N, but only as part of words which have an ou sound in them, like found, sound, ground and so on.

So once again, I ask you to plainly, and without using that link, which for the record is evidence of nothing so far as any reasonable examination of it can discern, explain, in detail, what it is that leads you to believe that the UN are anything to do with the matter. This is not an unreasonable request, since you bought it up, and have roundly failed twice at least, to provide any explanation at all, instead posting unrelated material.

To, yet again, point out, I asked yes/no. Period. You asking the asker to prove or disprove when I was the one asking the same damned question in the OP.

So far, no one has disproved it either....You've come closest to even addressing it!

Amazing how the Trump followers keep justifying his corporate flunky moves.

He has made them such dupes it's funny...
And they jerk themselves off into all kinds of intellectual contortions and fruit cake justifications for simple deception and greed.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Yes you are wrong.

Neutrality prevented information discrimination. By the isp.

Now they can block rivals, they can block political rivals and favor their candidates etc, without oversight or limit or even being wrong.

Not only that the cost will hit every market and shipping.

And cause the Democrats to win the next elections when consumers get outraged.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: nwtrucker

Yes you are wrong.

Neutrality prevented information discrimination. By the isp.

Now they can block rivals, they can block political rivals and favor their candidates etc, without oversight or limit or even being wrong.

Not only that the cost will hit every market and shipping.

And cause the Democrats to win the next elections when consumers get outraged.

You may very well be right. I still see it as worst case scenario flirting with fear mongering.

A random thought...It's a bad habit. Is it possible the reverse is the goal? That unfettered internet will cause exactly what you say which would open the door to full gov't control to 'correct' it? Perhaps with even more draconian regulations?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker

The end of free speech....Hmmm. Are we talking 'free' as in no cost? Or are we talking 'free' as in the right/choice?

"We're sorry, comment section is disabled at your current subscriber level (Click here to upgrade)."

Ah, so free as in no cost.

Hey! There's always the dark web....

originally posted by: Willtell
Amazing how the Trump followers keep justifying his corporate flunky moves.

He has made them such dupes it's funny...
And they jerk themselves off into all kinds of intellectual contortions and fruit cake justifications for simple deception and greed.

Seems like you want part of their action....

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Willtell
Amazing how the Trump followers keep justifying his corporate flunky moves.

He has made them such dupes it's funny...
And they jerk themselves off into all kinds of intellectual contortions and fruit cake justifications for simple deception and greed.

Seems like you want part of their action....

Nah, I only con the rich and give to the poor