It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier.
Faster than you can say, “you’ll have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it,” we’ve got government-controlled Internet. And poof, just like that another freedom for citizens has been made to disappear by Swami Obama.
Last week the FCC ruled in favor of Net Neutrality, which is anything but – according to the two opposing FCC commissioners who, dare I say, are heroes who tried to alert the public as to the tyranny once again about to be forced upon us for the sake of the greater good. Ajit Pai and Mike O’Reilly, the two Republican commissioners, said that these new rules will crush innovation, increases taxes and fees and finally give the FCC policing power over the Internet. This isn’t Net Neutrality; it’s net brutality!
Like there is the ability for Obama -- the Regime, administration, government, regulatory agencies -- to regulate content. I knew it. I had a conversation with some people about this years ago.
The big concern from opponents of net neutrality was just that, that what was actually being set up here was a government regulatory agency that would police content and make sure that every point of view had equal access. It would be the same thing as if the government could regulate cable TV. Here's Fox News at #1, and MSNBC at #25. "Well, that's not fair! That's not neutral. That's not equal."
So if there were a government agency that could regulate the audiences for Fox News, they would see to it that Fox lost some audience and that MSNBC picked some up. That's what they want to do with the Internet.
But Verizon believes that even if Congress had authorized network neutrality regulations, those regulations would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. "Broadband networks are the modern-day microphone by which their owners [e.g. Verizon] engage in First Amendment speech," Verizon writes.
Verizon believes that it's entitled to the same kind of control over the content that flows through its network as newspaper editors exercise over what appears in their papers. That includes the right to prioritize its own content, or those of its partners, over other Internet traffic.
"Although broadband providers have generally exercised their discretion to allow all content in an undifferentiated manner, they nonetheless possess discretion that these rules preclude them from exercising," Verizon writes. "The FCC’s concern that broadband providers will differentiate among various content presumes that they will exercise editorial discretion."
Verizon points to a 1994 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that regulations requiring cable television providers to carry broadcast television channels triggered First Amendment scrutiny. By the same token, Verizon says, network neutrality rules trigger First Amendment concerns by restricting broadband providers' rights to allocate more bandwidth to some content than to others.
We first argue that the FCC order violates broadband providers’ First Amendment rights by compelling speech, forcing them to transmit messages from content providers that they might not wish to convey, preventing them from transmitting messages they want to convey, prohibiting them from exercising editorial discretion, and generally restricting the mode and content of their communications.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: theantediluvian
The right at this point disproves of the government's actions first then makes up a reason why later.
originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
you can call it rightwing nonsense all you want...........
“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.”
pass legislation that they wont let any of the public read
And the left eat it up like the useful idiots they are
originally posted by: Bone75
Perhaps if Obama was even half as transparent as he promised to be, we could make an informed decision as to whether or not we support his efforts.
I had always assumed that net neutrality would enjoy bipartisan support because the impact of ISP censorship is equally bad for everyone, regardless of party.
The only reason this passed was not because its good for the consumer or that they want it, it was because we were lucky that Two oligopolies had opposing business models on the internet.