Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, Supports Obama on NetNeutrality

This is more evidence that the "conservative" reaction to President Obama's call for Net Neutrality is completely stupid partisan hackery. Even Alex Jones has jumped the shark by diving head-first into the empty pool of partisan madness -- just because Obama said it, it's a leftist cause.

Way back in 2005 -- yes, nine years ago -- Justice Scalia, in this dissent: National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services wrote that "the Federal Communications Commission should classify broadband providers as a more heavily regulated Title II telecommunications service."

“After all is said and done, after all the regulatory cant has been translated, and the smoke of agency expertise blown away, it remains perfectly clear that someone who sells cable-modem service is ‘offering’ telecommunications.”

This is lock-step in line with what industry proponents of Net Neutrality have been asking for, for years, and absolutely lock-step in line with what Obama wants the FCC to do.



This is not a partisan issue, it never was until this week.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The FCC regulates the allocation of the radio spectrum. The internet does not use radio spectrum, except for the WiFi devices that are in use, which the FCC already regulates. Internet services are delivered over already-regulated means of delivery: Cable, telephone lines, etc. The FCC and the government should stay the F out of it. THAT is true net neutrality - the government remains neutral and does nothing.

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

You're wrong on the FCC.. and the Internet in the US is already regulated under Title I. Also, most of Verizon's FIOS installations are regulated under Title II -- they're fighting to have that changed.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I agree that net neutrality must be preserved, but I am a little concerned that Scalia is backing Obama's version of it, which is what, exactly?? Does anyone know? It should not be a partisan issue and unless the government is going to absolutely preserve NN, then they should stay out of it, because I fear that Obama would enact legislation that had some hidden language in there to be used as a lever in the future.

If you like your internet, you can keep your internet.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

When Scalia agrees with Obama it makes me worried......

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
but I am a little concerned that Scalia is backing Obama's version of it, which is what, exactly?? Does anyone know?

Yes, thousands upon thousands of people know… reclassification as a Title II common carrier has been the desired approach of Internet companies, analysts, and professionals for over a decade. It's simple and requires no new laws.

Net Neutrality

originally posted by: tavi45
When Scalia agrees with Obama it makes me worried......

Actually… it's more like Obama agrees with Scalia, since Scalia said it first.

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I agree that net neutrality must be preserved, but I am a little concerned that Scalia is backing Obama's version of it, which is what, exactly??

If you like your internet, you can keep your internet.

Please read the second paragraph again...

Way back in 2005 -- yes, nine years ago -- Justice Scalia, in this dissent: National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services wrote that "the Federal Communications Commission should classify broadband providers as a more heavily regulated Title II telecommunications service."

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I have always been for NN, and I am nowhere near the left on most issues. People do need to drop the partisanship on this one.

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The FCC regulates the allocation of the radio spectrum. The internet does not use radio spectrum, except for the WiFi devices that are in use, which the FCC already regulates. Internet services are delivered over already-regulated means of delivery: Cable, telephone lines, etc. The FCC and the government should stay the F out of it. THAT is true net neutrality - the government remains neutral and does nothing.

So you have no problem with giant ISP's using strong arm tactics to get more money out of companies? That is exactly what Comcast did to Netflix you support that kind of thing? With more and more of the internet going WiFi it only makes sense that the FCC should have control of it.

hi,

are we in the midst of a new...
"noble experiment"?

This conventional explanation for repeal—that Prohibition was widely defied—can’t explain why Congress ended Prohibition after such a short trial run, particularly in light of the dearth of organized support for repeal during the 1920s. It’s far more likely that Congress proposed the Twenty-First Amendment (to repeal the Eighteenth) in February 1933 not so much because it was a faithful agent of voters who recognized the futility of Prohibition, but because the politicians desperately wanted more revenue.

constantly a nickel and dime affair?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Alex Jones is against net neutrality?

I didn't know. The FEMA camp that I work at building plastic coffins has his website blocked. I'm writing this on my break before the next trainful of dissidents arrives.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I have always been for NN, and I am nowhere near the left on most issues. People do need to drop the partisanship on this one.

Ever hear the old saying take your own advice?

I've been for NN in the true spirit of NN. Before everyone picks a bandwagon to jump on, maybe you should see what Judge Napolitano has to say about Obama's Net Neutrality:

Lookie here now

originally posted by: the owlbear
Alex Jones is against net neutrality?

Yes. He put out a video yesterday parroting the Republican fear-mongering lies.

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
maybe you should see what Judge Napolitano has to say about Obama's Net Neutrality:

He's lying.

It's the opposite. The FCC's proposal is what would give the corporate gatekeepers control of content...

1) they could slow down sites that don't pay the fast-lane extortion levies

2) they could slow down or block sites with competing services

3) they could block entire sites with bogus copyright claims

4) they could redirect traffic

5) they could alter packets of websites

This is not a partisan issue. It's a money issue.

New Poll: Republicans and Democrats Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality

About 81 percent of Americans oppose allowing Internet providers like Comcast and Verizon to charge Web sites and services more if they want to reach customers more quickly, that is, allowing what are often called "Internet fast lanes."
...
Indeed, Republicans were slightly more likely to support net neutrality than Democrats. Eighty-one percent of Democrats and 85 percent of Republicans in the survey said they opposed fast lanes.

What's the big deal?
So they both believe in net neutrality.
They probably both believe in immigration reform.
How they address these issues is where they most likely have different opinions.

So the debate is:

1. FCC regulation differences at Title I vs. Title II

and,

2. Speed throttling (and costs) at site servers levels 2 and 3.

????

Is this accurate?

And, is there any legislative proposals or is it all about existing FCC regulations?

Confusing.

This is a question that I am sure has been asked, but in a cursory search, I have been unable to find the answer.

What industrialized nations (who do not provide free internet access for their citizens) have a "pay to play" system instead of net neutrality? I realize some countries block content from sites due to their laws, even the U.S., but which countries allow ISP's to determine priority through payoffs?