Trump’s Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites

a reply to: scrounger

BTW if it is such a good idea over say capitalistic system then why dont we have cell phone neutrality?

Oh, that's simple. Having access to the "wrong" cell phone number does not endanger the status quo. Having access to the "wrong" internet site could endanger the status quo.

While I will admit to not having read the regulations on what is referred to as "net neutrality," this is certainly not the first time I have heard the accusations you make. Could you perhaps provide a link so we can all read the regulations? I know when I speak of "net neutrality," I am referring to an ISP not being able to restrict access to Internet sites. The regulations may say something different; there is no law that the title of a bill or regulation be indicative if its purpose... if there were, the Patriot Act would have been struck down before the "aye" votes in Congress died off.

TheRedneck

I notice that people are saying an ISP has to provide everything and has no right to limit or edit content.

first its a PRIVATE company.
they pay for their systems, upkeep and to make a profit do what they think will achieve that.
If they don't have what you want or block something its because its ok with their customers.
you know the PEOPLE WHO PAY (directly or though adverting or both) to keep them in business.

If they block something that the majority wants they either go out of business or carry it.

you do have a choice of ISP and if one does not meet your needs then GO TO ANOTHER.

second....
you are not entitled to tell a private entity what they must or must not carry.

for example you cant demand a restaurant carry a particular food or dish .
you cant demand a store carry every item or a specific one

as above if most customers want it and they want to stay in business, then they will

third..
even some public entities dont "carry everything"
look at libraries...you know those things that were the internet before the internet
not one carried or carries every book, movie, music, ect.
they pick and choose all the time.

lastly just because YOU (as in a particular person) thinks something should be carried or blocked so what?
to be blunt what makes your OPINION more important than someone elses.

as long as your not (within reason people) punished for what you want you have no right to demand a PRIVATE ENTITY provide you with something.

BTW funny how content cant be edited unless its white, christian, republican, conservative, or any non liberal approved .

scrounger

a reply to: TheRedneck

first let me say your the FIRST PERSON i have had comment to me that openly admits not reading the regulations/rules and respectfully asking where it is
VS personal attacks, well worn talking points, and just parroting whatever to support their point.

refreshing i say

here is one document from the FCC itself

transition.fcc.gov...

I am trying to find the original link I got from the .gov when all this kicked off.
but having trouble finding it due to since it "died" alot of direct links are gone

if I can find my original one I will post it

but you know gov website....even thats political in what you can find...LOL

Scrounger

This can have two possible interpretations. First, the graphic pornography, snuff, and child trafficking websites. Considering the background of the judge, this is a plausible argument, typical reasoning found with helicopter parents.

The second possible interpretation is a more capitalistic or nefarious bent. Statism gone to extremes, filtering real news, banning sites it doesn't agree with.

There is no defense of violation of liberty, and the internet is akin to a natural resource like air and water. How it is used should come under a no harm no foul clause, with criminalization of knowledge being unconstitutional. Criminalization of possession of data should also be unconstitutional. Laws already exist criminalizing theft and criminalizing profit from stolen goods. As data is an extension of consciousness and perception, it is reprehensible to conclude a court could cut that information out of your brain or try you in a court of law for overhearing or seeing something.

However, this is a moot point in relation to Trump's agenda. Trump's use of the internet is limited to the twitter on his phone. His reason for choosing this judge for SCOTUS is because they have a record of being a strong defender the powers and autonomy of the executive branch.

As Trump is constantly bombarded, mocked, and undermined by the judiciary and his appointees and aids are harassed to the point of resigning, his choice is purely strategic and retaliatory. Thus the erosion of civil liberties is a direct consequence of a concerted effort to undermine Trump.

it is highly probable that if he were NOT met with such obvious biased resistance and slander, that the United States could have had a more moderate and better defender of civil liberties of the population. Suddenly Napolitano is looking really good.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Southern Guardian

See thats the problem with political chearleaders that only point the finger at the other team or cry wolf. Most people wont takes you seriously nor will they be receptive of your point of view even when you make a valid one.

The reality of this and Trumps picks is and should be concerning to everyone especially the individual republicans, who it will come back to haunt.

Net neutrality is what built the global economic powerhouse known as the internet and what gives equal voice to the individuals versus only the big corps.


Net neutrality principles is what allowed for the non MSM sources such as ATS to expose the clinton lies and scandals and allowed trump to win. Undoing this will be like giving control back to the propagandist msm . It will be like cnn getting full control of what articles and information you get to access in future elections. Say goodbuy to Q and all other anonymous anti going with the grain sources.

I believe this is the doing of the neocon republicans vs Trump himself. I believe Trump has no clue of what net neutrality is ,its importance, or how critical of a roll it played in him winning the election. The neocon have passed a big one over trump with this IMO.

If you really understood net neutrality and were a conservative you should be extremely concerned with this.


I have mentioned this concern before and a few threads on it.

net neutrality under trump


here is why trump is sucking now

The internet existed, including with ATS, looong before net neutrality came around in 2015. I'm more concerned about people misleading people about net neutrality and spreading misinformation. There are other things actually happening that is taking away internet freedoms and preventing free speech to concentrate on.

In retrospect, I'd say the Obama Administration made several errors of judgement, and almost all of them had to do with getting outside their proper Constitutional lane.

It's funny to be able to look back on the recent past and see your own mistakes. LOL.

The FCC under Obama made administrative rules that rose to the level of legislation. Thus, the FCC under Trump reversed those rules.

I see the strengths of two arguments here: the one (my own position) that the internet was created by both governmental and market based entities, and therefore, has characteristics that should be recognized as being a public "utility."

On the other hand, if a business wants to limit its product or customer base for arbitrary reasons ... who am I to stop them?

It seems to me that Congress should act and then the matter would be resolved. Not going to hold my breath on that, however.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Seems to be what Coach K was saying, Congress needs to act, not the courts.

I'd like to see what the responses would be if it was Obama electing a pro NSA and pro ISP restricting judge. Only in obama's case he'd be more left leaning.

a reply to: skynet2015

There is no defense of violation of liberty, and the internet is akin to a natural resource like air and water.

No, wtf kid?? You have to be under thirty with a cell phone glued to your hand since birth if your mind has actually developed this inaccurate logic.

If I take away your air, you will die. If I take away your water, you will die in a few days. if I take away your internet, the only way you can die is if you took your own life. The internet is nothing but a signal with a slave message built into it to turn us all into drones. And it has already achieved that goal with up to 15% of the population of humans exposed to it globally.

Once Hanson robotics completes its AI communication interface, the signal will be able to enslave even more human minds. The signal is not air and water, without it you will actually be free.

To equate the signal with actual elements required for life to exist, well those are the thoughts of an enslaved mind, not a free one. If you were free in your mind, you would welcome the day the signal disappears and liberates the rest of our humans family and friends.

I think the internet should be banned to all minors, or at the very least there should be separate domains for those under 18 while the regular internet can be accessed by adults with verification better than a credit card #. Youtube should be torn apart by regulators and the board investigated as well for their monopolistic control.

Who knows? Maybe he will take down real Fake News like CNN and MSNBC, which imo is Justified because they're hurting the Republic, it's citizens, and trying to hand our country over to the control of Europe, Islam or whoever the highest bidder is.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: interupt42

The problem with authoritarians in power is that they believe they will never be out of power again.

True but I think that is more BS from the left trying to label Trump as any more authoritarians then pieces of Cr@p before him.

I didn't vote for trump and didn't trust him and still don't, but I do think this is more the doing of the neocon republicans than trumps doing. I seriously doubt Trump can comprehend what net neutrality is and was likely conned by the neocon republicans and tricked into this. Much like the individual republicans were conned by their own party when they went full commie and let gov't control the market with the bailouts.

a reply to: mkultra11

The internet existed, including with ATS, looong before net neutrality came around in 2015. I'm more concerned about people misleading people about net neutrality and spreading misinformation.

not to be too frank but that is Complete BS.

Either you don't understand what net neutrality is or you are willfully spewing BS or naively excepting what your party and lobbyist are telling you?

Net neutrality principles has existed since the inception of the Internet.

Net neutrality didn't exist for the first time ever a few years ago , and only for a very very short time frame when Verizon went to court and lobbied heavily for the telecom to undo it.

However in that short time that Net neutrality didn't exist comcast,att,verizon all started to PURPOSELY break peoples connections. Despite the consumer PAYING and being charged for fast service , verizon purposely slowed down their paying customers speeds in order to extort more money from Netflix..

Then net neutrality principles were put back into motion again shortly after that .

Not until recently again when the latest FCC wh0re repealed it. However the full effects haven't been put into action because they learned from last time of the revolt and they practice machiavellian tactics and will slowly kill you before you can react or rebel.

Trump won because of net neutrality principles, hence i think the neocons tricked him into repealing it. Hillary would have likely won had net neutrality principles didn't exist. Think of CNN controlling what forums and articles you could read online. You would have never gotten real coverage of the wikileaks or her other godzilian lies and scandals. Heck no more Q if that is your mojo. The republicans have really shot themselves in the foot and they don't even know it yet.

Here is an article from 2008 where comcast was brought in front of the FCC for violating net neutrality principles.

Here is Sir Timothy Berners-Lee, creator of the World Wide Web talking about net neutrality principle and how it contributed to the success of the Internet.

webfoundation.org...

“When I invented the web, I didn’t have to ask anyone for permission, and neither did America’s successful internet entrepreneurs when they started their businesses. To reach its full potential, the internet must remain a permissionless space for creativity, innovation and free expression. In today’s world, companies can’t operate without internet, and access to it is controlled by just a few providers. The FCC’s announcements today suggest they want to step back and allow concentrated market players to pick winners and losers online..

They have been trying to kill net neutrality for decades under both parties by stacking the FCC with revolving doors between the lobbyist.

Ok, so when Facebook, YouTube etc take down conservative content that they don’t like you guys say “ it’s a private company, they can do what they want”, but now when it is ISPs that have he opportunity to do the same thing, now it’s a problem.

Really, that's your argument?

You can easily find lists of top 100 + social media sites. Over 50 million American have literally.. one choice. Probably over 100 million or more might have TWO whole choices. Which is.. no real choice. That is why the rules were put into place.

You seriously think it's ok for a provider like Time Warner or Verizon to tell Netflix.. "Ok.. you have to pay us more," and if they don't, they throttle their service? I hope you enjoy your crappy Internet and crow about how awesome it is, otherwise you are a hypocrite. Enjoy your packaged Internet where an ISP with an agenda can charge more for the sites they don't support, throttle sites that don't pay them thug fees, and jack your prices exponentially.

I can't help but think anyone who actually supports this crap is an utter moron. It benefits no one except giant corporations. Brilliant!

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I do believe he's 100% correct in his opinion on ISP rights. As the ones holding all of the financial risks, those choices should be theirs. You will also find that my position on this hasn't changed, I opposed net "neutrality" when it was initially proposed and have remained consistent throughout, so what now, SG?

Lol... risks. ISPs have squandered tax breaks and grants and not done JACK regarding building infrastructure in the United States. The U.S. is TENTH in the world in Internet Speeds. Many countries have vaulted ahead of them. Crappy few choices, horrible speeds (especially upload speeds), high prices.. it's a joke. What risks.. getting super rich at the expense of U.S. citizens? I guess mission accomplished!

Here.. let me give you an example that most people have not even heard of. You tell me if this sounds "fair."

Comcast, instead of spending the money to increase the infrastructure to allow for wireless access across the U.S., decided to let their customers take the hit. Comcast modems have a second hidden network that lets random people in the area connect to your modem and "xfinity wireless network." Comcast says they provided extra bandwidth.. so it's all good! Except for those with 2.4 only.. in congested areas, you now have a crap-ton of people flooding your wireless channels. And yea.. that does slow you down.

Wait.. let me make sure. Ok.. just opened my Android wifi analyzer.. and holy crap, what do you know.. xfinitywifi is hogging channels, huh!

So please.. get off the "woe is the poor ISP" bandwagon. What a pathetic take. Most of the ISPs are in the fortune top 50.. or top 100 at worst. Speeds are pathetic while prices are high. Other countries are obliterating the U.S. in Internet service. Trump hired an ex-Verizon thug to get rid of net neutrality (not because he understands it, but Trump has a need to simply undo anything Obama did, whether he understands why or not). Now we'll have another person who is NOT looking out for you, but for big corp. AND YOU GUYS ARE EATING IT UP AND LIKING IT! How STUPID can you be, seriously? In your effort to support literally everything Trump does, you are supporting something REALLY stupid here.

It's ok.. I guess you can come here and gloat later, as long of course, as you pay for the 19.99 conspiracy websites package. Woot!

a reply to: Southern Guardian

You think they don't? Weird. Here I thought the first amendment protected all Americans, even those dastardly businesses that are so evil. Apparently it only protects the ones you approve of, according to you.

a reply to: fleabit

The U.S. is TENTH in the world in Internet Speeds.

Can you point to a country that has faster speeds while covering ~300 million people across 3.8 million square miles? No? Oh, well maybe you don't know as much as you think you do then.

peeds are pathetic while prices are high. Other countries are obliterating the U.S. in Internet service.

No they're not. At least not countries with similar geography and population spread. Without this your entire argument is just one giant complaint that ISP's are out to get you. You really don't seem to understand how markets work or even ISP's. You're mad at the world because you have to pay for something you wish to get for less.

Enjoy your sour grapes.

a reply to: fleabit

Over 50 million American have literally.. one choice.

Incorrect. Seeing as dish and directv both have internet packages, it's impossible for anyone in the US to only have a single choice.

Cue whining that satellite doesn't count and cherry picking ISP's to make his point is the only reasonable way to look at it.

a reply to: XAnarchistX

I just imagine you with your starbucks latte as you typed that.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: fleabit

Over 50 million American have literally.. one choice.

Incorrect. Seeing as dish and directv both have internet packages, it's impossible for anyone in the US to only have a single choice.

Cue whining that satellite doesn't count and cherry picking ISP's to make his point is the only reasonable way to look at it.

Cherry picking? So you are saying what.. accept the 500ms latency or suck it up buttercup? Not everyone can get dish. Some housing areas and many apartments won't allow it. Especially apartments that have made a deal with the cable company. How totalitarian you are sounding right now.. "Omg stop being so picky and accept one of your two choices you loser."

I've been in IT for 30 years. I've had to set up Internet and firewalls for construction trailers for years. I've dealt with P2P, DSL, satellite, cable, fiber, for a long time. I know what is out there, and how much it costs. And the ridiculous contracts that screw over businesses constantly. Auto-renewing contracts that have costs businesses 10 and 100s of thousands of dollars, and worse.

Bottom line is that anyone who thinks the ISP should get the benefit of the doubt and is doing honest business is clueless. They already screw over countless customers, and as net neutrality goes away, it will get much, much worse. Not businesses so much.. but the consumers? Expect to be raked over the coals, having your speeds diminished, while paying increasing costs.

We'll see who will be singing a different tune in a few years. Your patriotism towards Trump and his moronic policies are admirable though, fight the good fight I guess!

a reply to: fleabit

I'm literally laughing at how dumb this argument is. Let me point it out for you:

So you are saying what.. accept the 500ms latency or suck it up buttercup?

Translation: Waaaa but muh gaming and VOIP!!! I need cable!

Not everyone can get dish. Some housing areas and many apartments won't allow it. Especially apartments that have made a deal with the cable company.

Translation: Nothing is good enough for me. I just demanded cable, now I'm going to complain about that too.

How totalitarian you are sounding right now. "Omg stop being so picky and accept one of your two choices you loser."

LOL is this for real? Are you really saying having a choice is totalitarian? Or do you not realize that there are more than directv and dish (hughes, viasat)?

I've been in IT for 30 years.

Ok?

I've had to set up Internet and firewalls for construction trailers for years. I've dealt with P2P, DSL, satellite, cable, fiber, for a long time. I know what is out there, and how much it costs.

So how did you forget about satellite?

Bottom line is that anyone who thinks the ISP should get the benefit of the doubt and is doing honest business is clueless. They already screw over countless customers, and as net neutrality goes away, it will get much, much worse. Not businesses so much.. but the consumers? Expect to be raked over the coals, having your speeds diminished, while paying increasing costs.

Weird, my ISP just bumped up my speeds without any price increase (didn't even say anything, just changed it). Comcast got rid of data caps. You can now get 30meg satellite internet with no data caps. Plus, 5G will add even more competition to the space.

Quit being a prima donna.