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.

 

Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, Supports Obama on NetNeutrality

page: 3
49
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

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?



That doesnt mean squat to me, and the reason is , if hes nominating her its because shes in lockstep with his agenda , and traditionally his agenda has been horrible for Americans


Huh? Scalia is a SCOTUS MALE judge appointed by Reagan. You're right. One should do research.




posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
That doesnt mean squat to me, and the reason is , if hes nominating her its because shes in lockstep with his agenda , and traditionally his agenda has been horrible for Americans

Um.

Justice Scalia is a man, and he was nominated by Reagan. He's notoriously very conservative.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Im telling you , just like the other things this administration has done that look great on the surface,

It isn't HIS administration. The Bush administration first put forth "Internet Freedoms" back in 2004, that were the beginnings of much of the core ideas of Net Neutrality.

The entire Internet industry has been pushing Title II reclassification as the solution for years.

And, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the group at the forefront of the fight to keep the government out of the Internet (among many other Internet freedoms) has also been in favor of Title II reclassification for years.

Think about it, an independent anti-government group responsible for a long history of fighting for our rights, is in favor of Title II reclassification.


yes I know and i realize this, thats the part where i said in my post "previous administration"

Dont get me wrong, I agree this looks great............and I agree its a boon to them that the EFF is in favor.....

But , Im still cautious when people in our gov who are notoriously interested in keeping us under their thumb and monitoring everything we do on the net.......

Are behind something like this.........

Its critical that as a country we really look at every single sentence in this and make DAMN sure that they dont try to pass anything else inside this thing........because we all know they LOVE to do this



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
That doesnt mean squat to me, and the reason is , if hes nominating her its because shes in lockstep with his agenda , and traditionally his agenda has been horrible for Americans

Um.

Justice Scalia is a man, and he was nominated by Reagan. He's notoriously very conservative.


LOL im way off on that, I got my people crossways here with his new ATG......

My appologies



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

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?



That doesnt mean squat to me, and the reason is , if hes nominating her its because shes in lockstep with his agenda , and traditionally his agenda has been horrible for Americans


Huh? Scalia is a SCOTUS MALE judge appointed by Reagan. You're right. One should do research.


Thank you for clearing up my apparent hypocrisy there, I was confusing the new ATG with this gentleman, its been a long week ive been traveling a lot so forgive my lapse



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

It's pretty clear that he's not expressing concerns about loose wording or vague terminology.


The administration wants to regulate the cost of the Internet by allocating the cost to servers rather than having the free market allocate it, "which has worked magnificently and with near perfection," Napolitano said. "Once he is able to regulate costs, then the next step would be to regulate content."


He's saying that support for net neutrality by the administration is based in a desire to regulate content. There's not much interpretation needed.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
He's saying that support for net neutrality by the administration is based in a desire to regulate content. There's not much interpretation needed.

Yes. The interpretation is that he is lying. It's plain, and simple.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Plus this


New poll: Republicans and Democrats both overwhelmingly support net neutrality


In a new survey, the University of Delaware's Center for Political Communication found that support for neutrality is strong and widespread -- regardless of gender, age, race and level of education. ..

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.


www.washingtonpost.com...

And this
A poll released today by the Internet Freedom Business Alliance (IFBA), found that conservatives voters like the idea of net neutrality.
time.com...

Net Neutrality aside...what does it say about the GOP running things in DC that they are fiercely opposed to what 85% the countries GOP want?



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
Net Neutrality aside...what does it say about the GOP running things in DC that they are fiercely opposed to what 85% the countries GOP want?

Simple.

All politicians are indentured servants, serving in DC at the pleasure of their billionaire oligarch sponsors.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: deadeyedick

The point is that the wording can leave the door open for corruption even if the origional intent is pure.


The wording is already known.



Title II Common Carrier



A common carrier is distinguished from a contract carrier (also called a public carrier in UK English),[2] which is a carrier that transports goods for only a certain number of clients and that can refuse to transport goods for anyone else, and from a private carrier. A common carrier holds itself out to provide service to the general public without discrimination (to meet the needs of the regulator's quasi judicial role of impartiality toward the public's interest) for the "public convenience and necessity". A common carrier must further demonstrate to the regulator that it is "fit, willing, and able" to provide those services for which it is granted authority. Common carriers typically transport persons or goods according to defined and published routes, time schedules, and rate tables upon the approval of regulators. Public airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxicab companies, cruise ships, motor carriers (i.e., trucking companies), and other freight companies generally operate as common carriers. Under US law, an ocean freight forwarder cannot act as a common carrier.[2]


Is this how it is or what part of nn is aimed at? If this is how it is then it is simply a discrimination case. As far as i can tell this is enough to protect the users and does not leave the need for changes just enforcment.
edit on 12-11-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   

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?? 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.


If we have learned anything, it should be never trust a politician. I don't really care what Obama said. He could spell out what he means down to the last detail and I still wouldn't trust him. As everyone should know by now, if they know that what they intend to do is not a good thing, they will tell us they intend to do the opposite of what they actually want to do.

In other words, if Obama thinks what he really wants would be unpopular, he won't tell us what he really wants. He'll make it sound relatively innocuous and then he and his cohorts will quietly do whatever they want in the shadows. We won't know what they're actually doing until it's done and there's nothing anyone can do about it.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
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.
edit on 12-11-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Look at what they did with the wireless spectrum allocation a few years ago that opened up bandwidth for corporate interests like Google, screwing the ENG and Entertainment sectors in the process.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

There was a thread on ATS earlier in the week that attempted to make points against Net Neutrality, and although the points sounded good, none of them actually made any sense and a lot of them contradicted each other. It sounded like the OP was trying to make a case against Net Neutrality just because Obama was for it and Ted Cruz against it.

It seems like some Republicans are against certain policies just because Obama wants to do them - Obama is like a mystical being to them, some kind of anti-Christ figure. They would be for the same policies if their leaders supported them.
edit on 12pmWed, 12 Nov 2014 17:49:59 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
When everyone in government gets along, what could they achieve?



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad



AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said today that his company will "pause" investments in fiber networks until the net neutrality debate is over. The statement came two days after President Obama urged the Federal Communications Commission to reclassify broadband as a utility and impose bans on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.
source


Well we knew it had to happen. When the giant monopolies can't get their way by using their bought-and-paid-for politicians, they have to introduce fear-uncertainty-doubt (FUD) into the markets and among the people directly.

And this is quite indicative of the whole situation. A few giant corporations, aka monopolies, control the entire Internet infrastructure.



Dex



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   

It seems like some Republicans are against certain policies just because Obama wants to do them - Obama is like a mystical being to them, some kind of anti-Christ figure. They would be for the same policies if their leaders supported them.


They were for them just a couple years ago when the Bush administration wrote the proposals.

a reply to: DexterRiley

As part of their negotiating tactics with the FCC in the past Verizon has threatened to cut network access to Goldman Sachs essentially locking them out of any transactions/freezing their accounts and make them lose billions of dollars over night unless the FCC gave Verizon favorable rulings.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


As part of their negotiating tactics with the FCC in the past Verizon has threatened to cut network access to Goldman Sachs essentially locking them out of any transactions/freezing their accounts and make them lose billions of dollars over night unless the FCC gave Verizon favorable rulings.


I'd never heard that before. Do you have a link to a source on that?

Of course, I did a major spit-take when I read that.

If you remember a meme from a couple of years ago, there was an alternative pronunciation of the name of the above-mentioned uber-bankster. So here goes my summary of that statement:

Verizon scared the government by threatening to cut off the Gold Mansachs.



Dex



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

We had this conversation 4 years ago.

It was a scam then and they have had 4 years to really screw us with whatever they have planned.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




The Big Telcos have hired an army of lobbyist which include 18 former members of congress to lobby for their "NEW" Net Neutrality laws that "They" get to write. BAIT & SWITCH and the uninformed will buy into it hook, line, and sinker and "support" it because they are unaware of what has happened.


www.techdirt.com...




As much as we believe in the importance of a neutral network, we've pointed out over and over again that the last thing people should want is for specific net neutrality rules to be written by the government. For a while now, we've warned that once the lobbyists took over, people supporting net neutrality wouldn't like the results. And, of course, everything has been playing out following just that script. 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 Given that, there was a lot of outrage last month for a series of secret meetings between telco/cable execs and the FCC. You would think that, given the public beating the FCC got over those meetings it would know better than to hold more. No such luck. Apparently they're right back at it. As important as the concept of a neutral network might be, what comes out of this sausage making process is going to favor the very companies net neutrality regulations are supposed to keep in line.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

Thanks for the post on Judge Napolitano. There's a guy I respect and trust on liberty.




top topics



 
49
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join