• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality [W:23]

Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Hicup said:
My question is, in all fairness, don't we the tax payer own the damn ISP's anyway? Aren't we the one's that paid for the damn cable and towers through massive subsidies?

As far as I'm concerned open internet is WHAT is intrinsic about the internet. This ruling opens the door for a tremendous amount of corruption, and is purely antithetical to consumer protections.


Tim-
Click to expand...

They own the backbone now and they are free to use their property as they see fit.

Someone else can come in and lay cables and NOT censor to the wishes of the highest bidder.

All they have to do is buy enough politicians away from their current owners, then find investors willing to accept less profit.

THEN the consumers can decide which they prefer.

Invisible hand and whatnot.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Cephus said:
Sure you can. There are any number of ways around local blocking and if you don't like what your ISP is doing, you can find another ISP. There are plenty around. I'm not saying that they should do it, I'm saying that it is a service they offer and you, as a consumer, decide if you want to pay for the service as they offer it or not. There is no right whatsoever to have an internet connection.



Where do you get the idea that you actually have a right to connect to the internet at all? It's a service. It's provided by companies. You either pay for that service or you do not. Now I agree with you, I'd much rather have a free and open internet but I don't pretend that I have a right to have it that way, or at all. I'm just being realistic. It's a free market. Let those who want to filter do so and I know who not to pay any money to.
Click to expand...

Isn't it blocked at the backbone though?

Does a company get to buy bandwidth from a company that owns the wires and blocks and then not block themselves? Seems that wouldn't be allowed by the wire owner unless at a premium to offset money lost by blocking content for customers.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Zyphlin said:
And people can frolic around hand in hand under a rainbow while gum drops fall from the sky.

Look at your own post above. How long has there been "Demand" for something better than the ****ty, horrible, raping us in the ass cable company structures? Decades. And even now, there's been little significant "invention" of "something better" in large part because cable has such a devastating and complete hold Cable has on the situation.

Oh, and shocker…some of the few inventions that actually have been made that, almost by accident, helped that problem? Things like Netflix, Hulu? Guess what they’re dependent on…oh right, the same internet that said cable providers control.

You have first hand, indisputable, clear example of how that principle you just suggested DOESN’T WORK in the realm of the Telecoms under our current existing paradigm. And that’s in the modern day with the free and clear sharing of ideas and information leveraging the power of the internet; not a situation where said invention would need to be done in a boxed off walled garden that your telecom decides is the corner of the internet you need.
Click to expand...

For over forty years people have been demanding the ability to buy access to individual channels such as HBO without being forced to buy and pay for a package of channels that they don't want, yet somehow the marketplace has been unable to provide that option, despite markets with competition from multiple cable system operators, small dish service and internet access.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Samhain said:
Unless someone runs new lines, hence my original statement of "competing open infrastructure".
Click to expand...

Isn't the future in wireless? Why would anyone need to run more lines? Launch more satellites or build more towers maybe but aren't the days of needing transmission lines are running out?
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Zyphlin said:
....I stated that over the past 2 decades as people have been complaining about Cable Television and how it works that there's been limited actual significant advancement in creating worthwhile alternatives. ....
Click to expand...

There are small dish satellite services also (ie DISH network) and the entry of telcos in some markets (ATT)but they have not proven to be much of a challenge to cable in terms of programming choice, signal quality or price.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Heebie Jeebie said:
Isn't the future in wireless? Why would anyone need to run more lines? Launch more satellites or build more towers maybe but aren't the days of needing transmission lines are running out?
Click to expand...

Various interests are already fighting over access to the limited amount of RF bandwidth remaining.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Heebie Jeebie said:
Isn't the future in wireless? Why would anyone need to run more lines? Launch more satellites or build more towers maybe but aren't the days of needing transmission lines are running out?
Click to expand...

Wireless technology eventually terminates into a line-based infrastructure. I don't expect long-range wireless transmission data rates to even approach, let alone trump, fiber.

Perhaps eventually someone will invent a better mousetrap, but the tech isn't close.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

jonny5 said:
So long as people are continuing to pay comcast millions of dollars, comcast will not change. Economics 101.
Click to expand...

I agree. I've not suggested otherwise.

What's also Economics 101 is that if the choice in an area is "Comcast or no cable" then people are probably going to pay for the service even if they have to take it in the ass.

Again, my preference would be that we didn't have tax payer subsidies for telecom infastructure, we don't have regulations allowing telecoms near singular control over various issues, and we actually have a relatively free market so that net neutrality wouldn't be needed.

However, unless that happens or UNTIL that happens, government regulation is needed to help protect against the harmful situation the government has created the environment for.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Hard Truth said:
Various interests are already fighting over access to the limited amount of RF bandwidth remaining.
Click to expand...

And? Forty years ago telephone wireless didn't exist for all intents and purposes. Then when it started to be marketed was unbelievably expensive. Now some people have multiple wireless phones. Perhaps the current technology has this limitation but that doesn't mean there will not be another solution.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Samhain said:
Wireless technology eventually terminates into a line-based infrastructure. I don't expect long-range wireless transmission data rates to even approach, let alone trump, fiber.

Perhaps eventually someone will invent a better mousetrap, but the tech isn't close.
Click to expand...

And yet perhaps it will only require a few miles of wire at some point as opposed to the millions of miles in the current infrastructure. The demand to access internet rapidly is not going away. If roadblocks that impede open access to it are put in place the only thing I am certain of is someone will find a way around it, and probably become a billionaire in the process.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Samhain said:
Wireless technology eventually terminates into a line-based infrastructure. I don't expect long-range wireless transmission data rates to even approach, let alone trump, fiber.

Perhaps eventually someone will invent a better mousetrap, but the tech isn't close.
Click to expand...

I'm on a wireless system. And it originates from Time Warner Cable 50 miles away. So I have to assume that whatever the contract is between my ISP and T.W....won't exclude Time Warner from holding control over content.

It's kind of like we'll live in a new country that operates its Internet like China. We'll live in the United States of Corporations, which will obviously control the Interest.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Heebie Jeebie said:
And? Forty years ago telephone wireless didn't exist for all intents and purposes. Then when it started to be marketed was unbelievably expensive. Now some people have multiple wireless phones. Perhaps the current technology has this limitation but that doesn't mean there will not be another solution.
Click to expand...

What you are looking for is essentially optical wi-fi: laser-based transmission of data. Not sure how they would get around the point-to-point problem, but we can rest assured that top men are on it.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Samhain said:
What you are looking for is essentially optical wi-fi: laser-based transmission of data. Not sure how they would get around the point-to-point problem, but we can rest assured that top men are on it.
Click to expand...

Top men? You sure about that? I thought they were looking into an Ark of some sort. :)
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

poweRob said:
Tiered pricing... What a HUGE regression. Instead of being wide open, I'm seeing us regressing into like... Directtv styled pricing where "you get these channels for $X." Then you get these few extra channels for $X + much more." ... and on and on and on.
Click to expand...

Wireless communications did it.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

I'm thinking organizations will pop searching for censorship by ISPs, and reporting it.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

jonny5 said:
No, which is why I would use someone who didnt. Free market.
Click to expand...

When you have choices you might.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Samhain said:
I don't. If they do, it creates an opportunity for someone to setup a competing, open infrastructure......for a price. :)
Click to expand...

Only if they have Google's deep pockets.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Samhain said:
What you are looking for is essentially optical wi-fi: laser-based transmission of data. Not sure how they would get around the point-to-point problem, but we can rest assured that top men are on it.
Click to expand...

A laughable suggestion.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Verax said:
Not bigger, better. The reason the private sector wants to kill the government is so that they exercise absolute control with nothing to stop them. You really think that is preferable?
Click to expand...

Cleverest PR stunt ever, tricking folks into considering the referee the opponent.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

jonny5 said:
I think that the market works best when its left alone. That govt sometimes makes things better is the exception, not the rule. But as you allude, thats an ideological argument. If you have faith in govt, then that justifies what they do. If you have faith in freedom and the individual, then that justifies what they do. Im in the latter camp. I dont trust govt to get nearly anything right.
Click to expand...

And the issue is that you believe this is universally the case. It is not. See, certain markets have underlying issues that dampen or remove fundamental market forces. Surely you'd agree that choice, competition, and a reasonably informed consumer are basic features that a well-functioning market requires.

Radio stations are an excellent example. There are physical barriers to open competition: two signals cannot coexist on the same frequency. Given that radio frequencies suitable to broadcast radio and television are finite, this means there is a physical cap on the number of stations that can operate in a region. Plus, anti-competitive measures are easy to take. One can simply build a stronger transmitter and jam out the competition. For this reason, some regulatory oversight is required.

Internet service has major infrastructure problems that create a very high barrier to entry. This limits competition. Plus, the fundamental structure of the internet means it's not just about your ISP. If comcast censors the internet, you can theoretically pick another carrier if one is available. (And in most areas, there isn't another cable company) But: that ISP still can't guarantee that their data doesn't route through one of comcast's hops. Comcast can still theoretically slow netflix down to a crawl for a DeuceCorp customer.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

jonny5 said:
No, I think they are natural, temporary, and superficial. There are no real monopolies except maybe govt.
Click to expand...

Laughably wrong. Check in to what percentage of the population actually has access to two different cable providers. ISPs are natural monopolies like water and electric companies. It can be physically impossible to have a second cable company operate in some areas.

You are going to see costs go up, and speeds go down, and there isn't going to be an increase in choice. Worse, you'll see a reduction in entrepreneurship in any field that an ISP might see as competition. Music. Video. News... But hey, I bet you trust the companies that own all that liberal mainstream media will still let you go to foxnews.com at normal speeds?
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Deuce said:
Radio stations are an excellent example.
Click to expand...

Yes they are a great example, hence the birth of Satellite radio. When there is a demand there is someone who will find a solution. It may take a while but it will be found.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Zyphlin said:
I agree. I've not suggested otherwise.

What's also Economics 101 is that if the choice in an area is "Comcast or no cable" then people are probably going to pay for the service even if they have to take it in the ass.

Again, my preference would be that we didn't have tax payer subsidies for telecom infastructure, we don't have regulations allowing telecoms near singular control over various issues, and we actually have a relatively free market so that net neutrality wouldn't be needed.

However, unless that happens or UNTIL that happens, government regulation is needed to help protect against the harmful situation the government has created the environment for.
Click to expand...

Which means Comcast has not yet caused a need for competition. When they do, competitors will appears. Of course, we have DSL and Satelite. There ARE competitors. People still choose Comcast.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Deuce said:
Laughably wrong. Check in to what percentage of the population actually has access to two different cable providers. ISPs are natural monopolies like water and electric companies. It can be physically impossible to have a second cable company operate in some areas.

You are going to see costs go up, and speeds go down, and there isn't going to be an increase in choice. Worse, you'll see a reduction in entrepreneurship in any field that an ISP might see as competition. Music. Video. News... But hey, I bet you trust the companies that own all that liberal mainstream media will still let you go to foxnews.com at normal speeds?
Click to expand...

Cable is only one way to get television or internet. It happens to be the BEST way, which is why it dominates. My speeds have skyrocketed, FYI. That's why Comcast dominates here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom