Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, Supports Obama on NetNeutrality

a reply to: infolurker

The telcos hired a ton of high-power lobbyists to cover net neutrality, including eighteen former members of Congress. And, despite arguing for years that net neutrality was evil, the telcos "miraculously" admitted last month they "might agree" to regulations... just as long as they got to write the details

omg where have I heard this before....oh yes Obamacare

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: infolurker

The telcos hired a ton of high-power lobbyists to cover net neutrality, including eighteen former members of Congress. And, despite arguing for years that net neutrality was evil, the telcos "miraculously" admitted last month they "might agree" to regulations... just as long as they got to write the details

omg where have I heard this before....oh yes Obamacare

Those are the regulations the industry wants to right instead of being under Net Neutrality. The current rules for wireless networks came about the same way. Verizon and Comcast wrote the rules which the FCC then said they had to abide by. That was a couple of years ago. Now those rules aren't good enough, and the corporations want to write a new set of laws.

The small government, non fascist, free market approach is to implement and enforce Net Neutrality.

I clearly remember people on both sides of the political spectrum championing net neutrality. Now, because Obama agrees with them, they have to automatically disagree with him, against their own interests. It would be hilarious if it were not so sad.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Obama has/owes a great deal of his success to the Silicon-Valley-types,

the end of Net Neutrality would hurt Silicon-valley-type of companies. (the cable-companies seem mostly run by east-coast executives).

the violations of privacy through facebook and google data are clear evidence that they've got a "relationship".

a reply to: Aazadan

Azadan, I understand that people want to maintain a free and open Internet, but as Darrell Issa says when did government ever get involved in something where they made it better and more competitive? He also mentioned something which I stated also somewhere on one of these threads that people should look on their public utility bills and see what's on them....sorry government control doesn't do it for me.

video.foxbusiness.com...=show-clips

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: deadeyedick

Here's the actual wording from the COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934



SEC. 202. [47 U.S.C. 202] DISCRIMINATION AND PREFERENCES.

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

(b) Charges or services, whenever referred to in this Act, include charges for, or services in connection with, the use of common carrier lines of communication, whether derived from wire or radio facilities, in chain broadcasting or incidental to radio communication of any kind.



That's the primary crux of what would apply to ISP's. It's clear, simple, and quite easy to understand.

So really, we do not need a new law, we simply need the internet to be covered under this particular aegis which has been applied to telephones and cable for a good 80 years.

In other words, all the idiots like Ted Cruz screaming about government control/more regulations really don't know what they are talking about, as usual.

It makes perfect sense for the internet to be classed as a utility in this respect. Which is probably why it won't happen, because it makes sense.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Did you miss the part where Scalia was in favor of this 3 years before Obama was elected?

So why didn't they reclassify it then?

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Aazadan

Azadan, I understand that people want to maintain a free and open Internet, but as Darrell Issa says when did government ever get involved in something where they made it better and more competitive? He also mentioned something which I stated also somewhere on one of these threads that people should look on their public utility bills and see what's on them....sorry government control doesn't do it for me.

Well, lets look at it this way. Would you agree that a light regulatory touch is good? We need laws that say a coal power plant can't dump raw coal ash upstream of our drinking water, correct? How about laws that we don't dispose of batteries in places where they can leech into groundwater? Laws that say a company should have to tell us what is in their food product? Some regulations are a very good thing. It can certainly go overboard, but a light regulatory touch is good. Net Neutrality is that light touch. It's about one sentence worth of rules. What Comcast and Verizon are pushing are thousands of pages worth of rules as to when they can do things, when their competitors can't, and how they can invoke the wrath of the government to shut down private business.

Removing Net Neutality is the high regulation approach. Remember Ted Cruz saying that Net Neutrality is the Obamacare of the internet? What made Obamacare so bad? A large part of it was that we let private business write the rules by which they would abide. They took that opportunity to write rules that said everyone had to buy their product, and that they had to buy a lot of it. If we repeal Net Neutrality or go with this so called hybrid approach (which isn't hybrid at all) that is precisely what we are doing.

Net Neutrality is simple, concise, and a light touch. Repealing it is heavy handed and gets the government very involved as they seek to enforce thousands of pages worth of legislation.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Did you miss the part where Scalia was in favor of this 3 years before Obama was elected?

So why didn't they reclassify it then?

Because Verizon, Comcast and the other ISP's said no. Food for thought, Verizon fought very hard for our current rules just a couple of years ago, they virtually wrote the bills even. Rules that they now say are ridiculous and are too restricting.

a reply to: Aazadan

I thought we already had a light regulatory touch?

I am continually amazed by the idea I see here that people believe that more government will bring us more freedom.

Antony Sutton teaches us that the wealthy industrialists financed the Bolshevik Revolution and the Nazis and profited from it....they use the Hegelian model.

Now comes Big Brother to tell us he is going to save us from the evil corporations and save the Internet with regulations.....hahahah I'm just in awe of how people fall for that.
Sorry this article is a bit older but it's still the same thing www.breitbart.com...
I guess I shouldn't be surprised you threw the whole coal industry into this too, as everyone here on the left in my little town are for stopping coal just like the President is....you can always tell who is who when they bring up coal. The coal trains go through my town and right by my home and you can bet it's a big deal around here.

And oh yah Obamacare is one of the most monstrous pieces of legislation ever thanks very much.

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.

Dude your internet is going to resemble a cable tv package! The internet should not be restricted! Not only is ATS threatened here by myself also. I happen to make a living online too! I guess its no big deal unless your one of the little guys trying to meek out a living here!


I guess the days of an internet where some joe blow could spend a few weeks writing this or that and have it become the next facebook are over! When Net neutrality is gone the same guy would have to be part of a package offered by ISP's etc.. It aint about throttling its about limiting the information available to you.

Letting you fools turn this into a partisan issue really is telling! This has nothing to do with Obama! I wish to god he would come out and say he supports the end of Net Neutrality!

P.S. The FCC did regulate the internet and it was not until Verizon won a lawsuit and forced a rule change that this issue even came up!

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Did you miss the part where Scalia was in favor of this 3 years before Obama was elected?

So why didn't they reclassify it then?

Because Verizon, Comcast and the other ISP's said no. Food for thought, Verizon fought very hard for our current rules just a couple of years ago, they virtually wrote the bills even. Rules that they now say are ridiculous and are too restricting.

Verizon wanting to limit internet packages not unlike cable TV packages where you could think of websites as channels is what has led to the end of Net Neutrality! An ISP deciding which websites I can view is tantamount to book burning! If you wanted to pioneer some new web service you will have to have the backing of some major ISP or a ton of cash as you will have buy your way into a good internet channel. Net Neutrality protected innovation and forced ISP's to treat all internet data equally.

Government should be more limited, but there are a ton of cases where we must protect our freedoms with legislation! The internet is the closest thing to a voice the People of this country have! The MSM purports to be the voice of the masses but actually it is just clever programming and a bunch of actors. Limiting information on the internet most certainly limits your freedom!

The free exchange of information over the internet is a critical part of freedom in America today! Think of the internet as the worlds largest library and ask yourself why you should allow a simple door man the ability to limit which sections of the library you can visit. ISP's did not build the internet! They are just the door men who for a fee provide access!

An open internet belongs to the people while a closed internet clearly belongs to the ISP's! Please wise up here!

I don't understand all the hubbub about the net neutrality issue, from either party. Why they are wasting time and energy on a non issue, it's not broke, please don't fix it. Aren't there jobs needing to be created somewhere? Aren't their homeless and hungry that need attention? Both sides need to re-focus and pull their heads out of their arses.

originally posted by: StoutBroux
I don't understand all the hubbub about the net neutrality issue, from either party. Why they are wasting time and energy on a non issue, it's not broke, please don't fix it. Aren't there jobs needing to be created somewhere? Aren't their homeless and hungry that need attention? Both sides need to re-focus and pull their heads out of their arses.

Net Neutrality was an FCC rule. Verizon challenged this rule in court and won. Verizon wants to package internet services like cable TV channels where the websites would be the channels. They want/have the right to control what information you can see on the internet.

Think of the internet as the worlds largest library and ask yourself why you should allow a simple door man the ability to limit which sections of the library you can visit. Verizon has no ownership over the internet but is just a simple door man who provides access. In essence they want to charge you or content providers for the right to view the content on the internet.

So just to clarify. Net Neutrality was in place and protected the open internet. Verizon's Billion+ hard won lawsuit nullified the rule! Now ISP's will decide what content is available to you. At this time Net Neutrality is dead.

But the question is: how will he vote on it should it come before the court. And, what is he saying now that it's a 'conservative cause'.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Aazadan

I thought we already had a light regulatory touch?

Kind of. Earlier this year Comcast and Verizon already won, but the FCC didn't move on it due to severe public backlash. If things "stay the same" we've already lost the battle for Net Neutrality, which in turn means we've lost the battle for light regulation. Staying the course isn't really a winning proposition, because of that. We actually have to reaffirm Net Neutrality as new legislation. That's not really a big deal, written properly it's one sentence worth of laws... it just has to be written and enforced, which is far preferable to the alternative of thousands of pages worth of regulations written by Verizon.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised you threw the whole coal industry into this too, as everyone here on the left in my little town are for stopping coal just like the President is....you can always tell who is who when they bring up coal. The coal trains go through my town and right by my home and you can bet it's a big deal around here.

There's nothing wrong with coal. It's cheap, plentiful, and provides needed electricity, my energy policy is "all of the above". Eventually I would like to be rid of coal because the pollution is a major concern, but that day is not today. In the end however even if I support coal plants, I don't want the waste product dumped upstream of my drinking water.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I believe the real issue is that there is not nearly enough information out there about either position...From what I know of the issue I am leaning against Net Neutrality...Apparently it's a power struggle between both sides...I know I do not trust the gov't to regulate the internet and I don't want them in my computer...

originally posted by: Iscool
Apparently it's a power struggle between both sides

There's a great deal of net neutrality information out there, some of it has been around for more than five years.


Yeah, power struggle all right.


Net Neutrality Free and open Internet where Internet service providers cannot screw with the free flow of data.


Anti Net Neutrality Closed and metered Internet where Internet service providers are able to filter the flow of data.


Which side of that power struggle do you prefer?

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: Iscool
Apparently it's a power struggle between both sides

There's a great deal of net neutrality information out there, some of it has been around for more than five years.


Yeah, power struggle all right.


Net Neutrality Free and open Internet where Internet service providers cannot screw with the free flow of data.


Anti Net Neutrality Closed and metered Internet where Internet service providers are able to filter the flow of data.


Which side of that power struggle do you prefer?

I am 100% Pro Net Neutrality for one simple reason. A data packet is a data packet. That's it. Routers only care about getting data packets from point A to point B as efficiently as possible. The routers could care less where or who they come from.

It's all about money...it always is. If anyone thinks for one single moment that given the power, internet providers won't put the squeeze on people for money, they are sadly mistaken. Many sites that are now free, would have to start charging fees just to say online. It's a bad idea.

Trickle down economics:

FCC makes the changes.... Companies can now charge people an extra fee for "higher speed" access. Companies who main source of revenue is on-line are going to get hit hard... for instance... Blizzard Entertainment and World of Warcraft. Millions of subscribers who pay xxx amount of money to play each month. Blizzard get squeezed and they have no choice but to accept the fees. Guess who gets to pay for those fees? It ain't going to be Blizzard Entertainment...they will simply raise the monthly subscription fee to recover the loss.

Free sites like this one, ATS and Youtube...Facebook.....you name it.... some of them will be forced to start charging for their sites.

It's a bad bad idea.

Example for companies that rely on the internet for revenue:

Option A: Current internet = a interstate high way between two points.

Option B: Anti Neutral Internet = a interstate toll road between two points and a secondary 2 lane highway for everyone who doesn't want to pay the toll. A 2 lane highway that goes miles out of the way through a bunch of little towns with a lot of traffic lights.

I will stick with option A. Hope all of that made sense to someone lol.

This thread is featuring on ATS Live tonight!

www.abovetopsecret.com...