Open Internet Order - Judges Hear Arguments on Rules for Internet
- By EDWARD WYATT - September 9, 2013 - The New York Times
WASHINGTON — In a momentous battle over whether the Web should remain free and open, members of a federal appeals court expressed doubt over a government requirement that Internet service providers treat all traffic equally.
On Monday, the Federal Communications Commission and Verizon, one of the largest Internet service providers, squared off in a two-hour session of oral arguments — three times as long as was scheduled. As Verizon pushed for the authority to manage its own pipes, the government argued that creators of legal content should have equal access to Internet users, lest big players gain an unfair advantage.
But two judges appeared deeply skeptical that the F.C.C. had the authority to regulate the Internet in that manner.
The two jurists, Judge Laurence H. Silberman and Judge David S. Tatel, said that the agency’s anti-discrimination rule — which requires an Internet service provider to give all traffic that travels through its pipes the same priority — illegally imposed rules meant for telephones on the infrastructure of the Web. The F.C.C. itself disallowed the telephone-type regulation a decade ago.
The third judge, Judith W. Rogers, did not ask as many questions but appeared to accept much of the F.C.C.’s position.
Consumers could experience a significant change in the Internet if the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit strikes down the F.C.C.’s requirement, called the Open Internet Order.
Currently, companies that offer goods or services online do not have to pay anything to get their content to consumers. If Internet service providers started charging fees to reach customers more quickly, large, wealthy companies like Google and Facebook would have an edge, the F.C.C. says. The government argued that such a tiered service could cause small, start-up companies with little money to pay for their access — the next Google or Facebook, perhaps — to wither on the vine.
In any case, the added costs would be likely to be passed on to consumers.
The case, which is expected to be decided late this year or early next year, has attracted enormous interest. On Monday, telecommunications lawyers began lining up to get into the courtroom two and a half hours before the session was scheduled to start. The session was standing room only, with many others left to listen in an adjacent overflow room.
The judges were not entirely hostile to the F.C.C.’s arguments. Judge Tatel, who many telecommunications analysts expect to be the swing vote on the case, pushed lawyers on both sides to concede that the part of the F.C.C. rule that prohibits outright blocking of online content or applications could be allowed.
Judge Tatel also queried each side on whether the two main provisions of the Open Internet Order — no blocking and no discrimination — had to be taken as a whole or could be separated, with the no-blocking rule being upheld.
An opinion that voided one provision yet upheld the other would be more likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, telecommunications lawyers said, because neither side would be completely happy with the decision.
Helgi C. Walker of the law firm Wiley Rein, who argued the case on behalf of Verizon, said the rules had to be struck down as a whole. Congress never intended the F.C.C. to have authority to regulate the Internet, she said.
Sean A. Lev, who argued the case for the agency, told the judges that the F.C.C. did have the authority to govern the Internet under numerous parts of the Telecommunications Act, including one that gives the commission the duty to work to expand broadband access. Companies that have equal access to consumers are encouraged to innovate, Mr. Lev said, adding that it would result in more vibrant start-ups and a growth in demand for Internet service.
The judges themselves seemed intent on viewing the case from as many sides as possible. Each side was scheduled 20 minutes to present its case and answer questions from the justices. But after spending 30 minutes on Verizon’s presentation, the judges proceeded to grill the F.C.C.’s lawyer for a full hour.
The remainder of the two-hour session was spent hearing from a lawyer representing public-interest groups, who joined the lawsuit on the F.C.C.’s side, and a rebuttal from Verizon.
The F.C.C.’s uphill battle, in part, reflects politics and past decisions by the agency. In 2002, its chairman at the time, Michael K. Powell, a Republican, got the majority of the commission to agree that the Internet was not a telecommunications service like the telephone system. Instead, it classified the Web as an information service, making it subject to much lighter regulation.
Obama's Plea for War Crosses Public's 'Red Line'
Published on September 8, 2013
Alex welcomes radio personality and Co-Host of Coast to Coast AM, Mr John B. Wells to the program to help break apart the mainline stories being given to the public in relation to Syria and gas attacks as well as how we can see through the continued subterfuge to get to the truth.
* Tucker Carlson - Episode 22 - Exposes Secret Gay Struggles In Barack Obama
Chemtrail Poisons Are Ruining Your Health From Above, And You May Not Know It
- By Christina Sarich - September 9, 2013
If aluminum deodorants and anti-perspirants aren’t good for us, how can chemtrails being sprayed in our neighborhoods be benign? Geo-engineering, otherwise known as chemtrails, have been exposed by numerous alternative news outlets, reporters, and documentaries such as What in the World Are They Spraying? In this important piece of social activism, we can learn how we are being sprayed with huge amounts of aluminum, strontium, and barium, among with other health-wreaking chemicals against our will, and without our consent.
Chemtrails: Confirmed and Denied
The government continues to lie to us about the existence of weather-ownership via geo-engineering, but Congress is planning to legalize Bills like Senate Bill 1807 and U.S. House Bill 3445, along with the Climate Security Act (Also known as the Lieberman-Warner bill, bill number S. 2191 ) which was not passed in 2007 when it was introduced, but is up for a vote again. On the surface it looks smart and snappy – a greenhouse gas reduction bill to reduce emissions to below 2005 levels, however, Rosalind Peterson explains the true malicious intent behind these bills:
“These bills are designed to sell out the health and welfare of the people of the United States in order to establish a national and international Cap & Trade Money Market Scheme, and under Section 6E, “…initiate programs to “mitigate” the impacts of any unavoidable global climate change…” These bills have nothing to do with “Climate Security”. They are designed to fleece the American people out of billions of their tax dollars to support a questionable “market scheme of carbon trading” by selling “emission allowances” to polluters to allow them to pollute more in the future.”
Just one of the chemicals being sprayed profusely in chemtrails, aluminum, causes all sorts of health problems. The chemical attacks the nervous system, primarily, and cause everything from disturbed sleep, nervousness, emotional instability, memory loss, headaches, and impaired even impaired intellect. Whether this is an intentional or accidental side effect of chemtrails spraying remains to be uncovered.
Soil and water samples are being tested at the top of Mt. Shasta, California, and in Siskiyou County, for example, and the aluminum levels are high enough to kill a moose. The levels are “off the charts” with the highest reading so far at 4,610 times the maximum contaminate level for drinking water in the sunny state. A recent snow sample taken form Ski Bowl on Mt. Shasta showed 61,000 ug/L, 61 times the maximum contaminant level for aluminum in drinking water.
Read: Chemtrails: Obvious Overhead Pollutants Ignored
Even the minimal use of aluminum deodorants and anti-perspirants can cause the back up of lymph nodes – fluids aren’t able to move through the body and cause breakouts along the temples and neck. Prolonged exposure to aluminumat high levels, such as those being sprayed across the sky, can also cause:
- Brain degeneration
- Impede the bodies ability to digest calcium, phosphorous and fluoride.
- Prevent bone growth and lessens bone density.
- Cause aching muscles
- Speech problems
- Anemia
- Digestive issues
- Impaired liver function
- Impaired kidney function
- Colic in babies
Barium is also a chemical being found in heavily sprayed areas. According to the Centers for Disease and Control Prevention, (CDC):
“Ingestion of certain forms of barium (e.g., barium carbonate or barium fluoride) in toxic amounts can lead to gastrointestinal signs and symptoms (e.g., vomiting, abdominal pain, and watery diarrhea). Within 1–4 hours of ingestion, profound hypokalemia and generalized muscle weakness can develop which may progress to paralysis of the limbs and respiratory muscles. Severe hypokalemia induced by barium toxicity can cause ventricular dysrhythmias (1-7).”
In addition to exposure to aluminum and barium, we are also being poisoned with Strontium-90. While this statement may take your breath away – chemtrails are taking your breath away. Strontium-90 is used as a radioactive tracer in medical studies and in studies of agricultural crops. It is also used in beacons for navigating, remote weather stations and space vehicles. Strontium-90 is used in electron tubes to treat eye diseases and as a radiation source in industrial thickness gauges, but it was never meant to be inhaled, or consumed through water and soil.
If this compound dissolves in water, the chemical will dissolve in the moist surface inside the lungs. Strontium will then enter the blood quickly. If the chemical form of strontium does not dissolve in water easily, a small amount may remain in the lungs. Health problems can develop including lowered red blood cell counts including anemia, which causes excessive tiredness, blood that does not clot properly, and a decreased resistance to fight disease.
We need to start detoxing these chemicals being dumped on our heads every day. Stratospheric aerosol spraying, also called geo-engineering, or chemtrails, are not good for anyone’s health. When coupled with GMO monopolies, non-organic foods, the consideration by the US government to forcibly make us take vaccines, and the push for ever more pharmaceuticals instead of natural treatments, it is anyone’s guess what is really going on at the top.
Originally appeared at Natural Society.
Fluoridation victories continues as Washington town banishes toxic chemical from water supply
Monday, September 09, 2013 - By: Jonathan Benson
Another victory has been won in the fight to protect the public against water supplies intentionally poisoned with artificial fluoride chemicals, this time in Woodland, Washington, a city located just 30 miles north of Portland, Oregon. As reported by The Daily News online, the Woodland City Council recently voted 6-to-1 to stop adding synthetic fluoride chemicals to its public water supply after it was determined that the outmoded practice is both unsafe and ineffective.
Following the lead of nearby Portland, which back in May also decided to keep its water supply pure and free of toxic industrial waste, Woodland joins many other scientifically progressive communities across the country that have had enough of all the status quo, pro-fluoride rhetoric. Citing a cohort of peer-reviewed studies and meta-analyses published in recent years, vigilant Woodland residents were able to show the receptive council that artificial fluoride is dangerous, and has no place being added to water.
"I am against my government medicating me without my consent," said Terry Day, a local resident, to the council at a recent meeting. Day was one of 20 other local residents who showed up to oppose fluoride -- not a single individual in favor of artificial fluoridation showed up to the meeting to defend the practice.
According to reports, all of Woodland's councilmen had conducted their own research prior to the meeting, and, with the exception of just one, came to the conclusion that fluoridating the water needed to stop. Councilman Ben Fredricks, for instance, expressed that cities have no business adding fluoride chemicals, which are technically a drug, to water supplies without consent.
Adding fluoride "allows decision makers without medical qualifications to do to the whole community what a doctor is not allowed to do to his or her patients," Fredricks is quoted as saying.
Councilwoman Marilee McCall agrees, having also expressed concerns about fluoride, and particularly its safety when ingested continually over the course of one's lifetime. She and Fredricks, along with four other council members, voted to give back to the people of Woodland their health freedom and allow individuals to choose whether or not to ingest or use fluoride.
"Everyone has the opportunity to use [fluoride] topically as a toothpaste if they wish," added Fredricks in his dissent against fluoridation. "Every doctor I go to knows they can't force a patient to take a medicine without their informed consent."
A fluoride-free Woodland means less government spending, improved public health Ending the fluoridation program in Woodland will also result in taxpayer savings of up to $5,000 per year, which is what the city used to spend to truck in the industrial waste and dump it into the water. Contrary to popular myth, the fluoride chemicals added to public water supplies are not natural but rather are derived from industrial processing byproducts, which typically also contain lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, radionuclides and other poisonous compounds.
"[E]veryone is free to use fluoride-containing toothpaste, or to add fluoride to their diet," wrote one commenter on a related article about the decision. "Why compel the entire population, including millions of children, to ingest a substance which is, AT BEST, of unknown toxicity?"
To learn more about the dangers of fluoride, and for information about how you can help get it removed from your local water supply, be sure to check out the Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridealert.org
Sources for this article include:
http://www.nwcn.com
http://www.columbian.com
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu
http://cof-cof.ca
http://tdn.com
http://www.fluoridealert.org
http://science.naturalnews.com
- You are here:
-
Home
- News