Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, Supports Obama on NetNeutrality

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit

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

It's not the first time he was wrong. Don't forget who he works for a right wing propaganda "news" service. So he will be a good little tool and regurgitate just what he is told to say.

originally posted by: the owlbear
but which countries allow ISP's to determine priority through payoffs?

There's none that I could find when doing research for the NLBS episode. Most have rules/regulations similar to what Title II reclassification would bring… though less complex in scope.

Interesting:

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

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Thank you. That's what I found as well, but figured I would ask in case I missed something.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
Interesting:

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

Maybe Net Neutrality will also force the government to not rely on PE to expand the utility and pony up to infrastructure. Lets all hope this passes sooner than later.The FCC chair has already said it will be litigated so lets see if Scalia puts his money where is dissent was when it again comes before the SCOTUS.

If the FCC doesn't reclassify, many companies will end up paying the premium cost and the little guy (me and you) will be left to either choose to pay a premium cost or suffer the consequences (I'd probably stop playing on the Internet). So, effectively, this is the telecom companies raising their rates across the board, without having to come out and say, "we're charging more for the same service you're getting now".

Everyone paying to operate at higher speeds means no one has an advantage over anyone else. Everyone just pays more for what we already have.

The Conservative Case for Net Neutrality

Calling Title II reclassification “net neutrality regulation” is a little odd, because net neutrality has been a policy goal of the FCC for nearly a decade. But still, the whole episode was tiresome. Net neutrality proponents watched as policy they had long hoped for picked up its most-important advocate ever, and then as the issue accumulated partisan muck.

Which was… a little weird to watch, too. Because net neutrality—even Title II reclassification—has often been endorsed by none other than conservatives.

A poll released by a consortium of pro-net neutrality found that self-identifying conservatives widely support regulation to limit cable companies’s ability to affect the Internet.

More affirmation that this week's posturing by Ted Cruz and others is just the continued extension of Damn the country, Obama must fail mentality of conservatives. They were for Net Neutrality until Obama was for Net Neutrality.

The term net neutrality is now tainted eventhough when one digs into it the purposed changes are correct. It has been coined into the back of everyones minds to the point that even some that will be strongly affected by it will go against it. NN is no linger a fix but has become a talking point for the two parties. The only problem is the stero type that has been created by talking heads and such. You are correct in your looking to the scotus on this because it is a dead issue come new year. Now is the time for rebranding or scotus action.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

net neutrality is not a left / right issue. It's a corporatist vs free market issue.

Those that want to get rid of net neutrality (the current way) want the government to interfere and alter the playing field for internet commerce in favor of large corporations. That's the opposite of free market. The big corps are trying to curtail competition by altering the playing field.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
More affirmation that this week's posturing by Ted Cruz and others is just the continued extension of Damn the country, Obama must fail mentality of conservatives. They were for Net Neutrality until Obama was for Net Neutrality.

Which is what I've been saying FOREVER. Your platform can't be just, "We aren't the Democrats." Propose legislation. Let the Oval Office sign it or not and put the onus on them. They've got 2 years to show the American people that they are more than an obstructionist party. If they don't 2016 is going to be a REAL wake up call.

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit

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

What a ludicrous non sequitur.

"Once he is able to regulate costs, then the next step would be to regulate content."

Net neutrality isn't about "he" (Obama) regulating costs at all. That's just stupid. It's about preventing ISPs from boosting their profits by extorting money from content providers and in this way, becoming the de facto regulators of content — picking and choosing who will succeed based on who ponies up the most money.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Bless his pointy (actually oval) little (well, actually pretty big) head. Even a broken watch with a date hand is right twice a year.

a reply to: theantediluvian

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

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: theantediluvian

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

Exactly. Like other legislation.. Patriot Act rings a big bell.

Im all for the freedom for flow of information...........

But this doesnt set right with me...........

Something is wrong........something isnt being told to us........and this ISNT what they are making it out to be.......

For people who are so critical to look at things for more then just their face value, does it NOT occur to anyone here on ATS , especially you SO......

that if Obama is so much behind this AND his new Att.General, given his past administrations undaunted task of not only carrying out the old invasions of privacy and violations of rights, but his INCREASED applications there of in conjunction with Eric Holder, that SOMETHING here might be amiss?

Im telling you , just like the other things this administration has done that look great on the surface, something.......isnt right.....

DO NOT buy whole heatedly into this with out investigation........

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 reply to: ManBehindTheMask

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

Inn acurate post made point moot

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.