• 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!

FCC’s grab for new regulatory power could go beyond broadband providers

Why doesn't congress just go ahead and make a firewall already? I mean... they've got the whole telecom spying thing down pat, might as well add full internet censorship to the list.

You just know they want to do it too.
 
The destruction of internet equality will be the transparent declaration of our oligarchy.
 
I didn't say Republican. Read more carefully.
Pssst. Read more carefully, I used your clever term. As well as the equally clever term democants. :cool:
 
I swear to god... every time the wealthy want to **** over the people and rob them the right-wingers are right there holding their hand doing everything in their power to help them. My ideology says this is a good idea! I support it cuz private cumpaneez are gud and gubmint is bad!

I have to wonder just how ****ing stupid you people are.
 
Nope, A tier1 network is owned by private companies. They have private agreements as to how traffic travels. There is nothing public about it. Comcast gets to profit from it, because they own a significant percentage of it. They install the switches and routers, they run the cables, they install the servers and software, and keep it running. They connect to other ISPs. Thats what the internet is. The taxpayers, the govt did nothing but fund the initial idea, and then regulate the hell out of it, when private individuals and companies made it truly what it is.

Youre right though that if Tier1 companies decided to change the business model, their competitors wouldnt like it. They would use their own leverage to deal with it. Consumers would too. Thats what commerce is.
By definition, a Tier 1 network is an IP network which conducts traffic via settlement-free interconnection
Peering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(That means I route your traffic, you route my traffic, and neither of us pays each other)

As for the rest, there is WAY more to it than that. Ever hear of Apache? SSL? osCommerce? Linux? The amount of free software you're using to write those posts is impossible to list. The way the internet works is that you take what's there and use it to produce something new. Then you try and make money off of the new stuff you've made. In return for free use of all of the free stuff that's out there; all you have to do is release any improvements, bug fixes, etc.. to the preexisting infrastructure.

Am I right in assuming that you're not in a tech field? Because I have never met anyone who's livelihood depended on the internet who thought that it was somehow a good idea to allow the least technically innovative participants in the internet to pick winners and losers based on who they could extort the most money from.

Imagine a world in which Google was launched without net neutrality. A far inferior search engine like Altavista could just go to Comcast and buy priority. Even though the new Google search engine has a better search routine, it would lose because Altavista searches would be far faster. Do you really think that's a good idea? Why would we want to discourage competition?
 
Pssst. Read more carefully, I used your clever term. As well as the equally clever term democants. :cool:

You're going to want to reread what you wrote before. You may have intended to write Republocrat, but you really wrote Republican.
 
You're going to want to reread what you wrote before. You may have intended to write Republocrat, but you really wrote Republican.
Ha ha, well you really got me there! It looks to me like we both could read more carefully, because what I really said was:
So call them republicrats and democants if you want, but blame them both and all.
Do you have some issue with my comment that you carefully missed? Which part?:bringit
 
Are you seriously against net neutrality?

Do you approve of government officials re-interpreting laws passed by the legislative branch of our government and signed by the President to promote their own agenda's?
 
Do you approve of government officials re-interpreting laws passed by the legislative branch of our government and signed by the President to promote their own agenda's?
I approve of standing by what I actually believe.

Net Neutrality is vital to the future of innovation. The people fighting against net neutrality want to allow ISPs to be able to extort money from the people actually doing the work and innovating. And yes, the government has ample authority to enforce this.

Where is the money on this issue? The lobbing money is being spent by the big ISPs. They're trying to profit off other peoples hard work by paying off the political process. I'm kind of flabbergasted that a mod on a open forum powered by phpBB (entirely open source) could possibly be against net neutrality.
 
I approve of standing by what I actually believe.

Net Neutrality is vital to the future of innovation. The people fighting against net neutrality want to allow ISPs to be able to extort money from the people actually doing the work and innovating. And yes, the government has ample authority to enforce this.

Where is the money on this issue? The lobbing money is being spent by the big ISPs. They're trying to profit off other peoples hard work by paying off the political process. I'm kind of flabbergasted that a mod on a open forum powered by phpBB (entirely open source) could possibly be against net neutrality.

And while you're standing up for what you believe are you willing to allow a government officials to re-interpret laws? There is a right way to do things, and a wrong way. Which way are you going on this one?
 
And while you're standing up for what you believe are you willing to allow a government officials to re-interpret laws? There is a right way to do things, and a wrong way. Which way are you going on this one?

The didn't reinterpret. They used a different method to impose net neutrality.

But seriously.. are you actually against net neutrality? I'm not asking to be a jerk. I've just never heard anyone being against it unless they actually have skin in the game.
 
The didn't reinterpret. They used a different method to impose net neutrality.

But seriously.. are you actually against net neutrality? I'm not asking to be a jerk. I've just never heard anyone being against it unless they actually have skin in the game.

By re-interpreting a clause in a law that our legislative branch passed. It doesn't matter if I am for or against net neutrality in this case. What's more concerning is government officials re-interpreting law. And you can't really say that they are not re-interpreting the law when you have someone that was there while the deal for the law was made saying that they are.
 
By re-interpreting a clause in a law that our legislative branch passed. It doesn't matter if I am for or against net neutrality in this case. What's more concerning is government officials re-interpreting law. And you can't really say that they are not re-interpreting the law when you have someone that was there while the deal for the law was made saying that they are.
Considering the kind of thing you're talking about happens pretty much every day; only this time it involves net neutrality.. Something which was clearly desired by the legislature, but the previous authority used to impose it was declared unconstitutional.

And yes you can. One person may have an opinion as to what something meant, but that person doesn't speak for everyone present.

This is really just about net neutrality.
 
Considering the kind of thing you're talking about happens pretty much every day; only this time it involves net neutrality.. Something which was clearly desired by the legislature, but the previous authority used to impose it was declared unconstitutional.

And yes you can. One person may have an opinion as to what something meant, but that person doesn't speak for everyone present.

This is really just about net neutrality.

So if you can't get it the correct way it's ok to re-interpret laws? I'm well aware that its done alot. Doesn't mean that we should not speak out about it when it happens. And certainly not allow it just because its something that we want. Because next time it may be something that we don't want.
 
Do you have some issue with my comment that you carefully missed? Which part?:bringit

I was just clarifying that I didn't call Obama a cog of the Republicans, as you have written; but rather a cog of the Republocrats. As we essentially just have a single party and both R and D work for the same end.
 
I was just clarifying that I didn't call Obama a cog of the Republicans, as you have written; but rather a cog of the Republocrats. As we essentially just have a single party and both R and D work for the same end.
You might not have intended to, but the way you said it made the joke irresistible to me. ;) I find vast differences between conservatives and liberals, but find a lot of similarity in the democrats and republicans!:peace
 
So if you can't get it the correct way it's ok to re-interpret laws? I'm well aware that its done alot. Doesn't mean that we should not speak out about it when it happens. And certainly not allow it just because its something that we want. Because next time it may be something that we don't want.
Here's my understanding of what happened. The DC circuit court said that the previous method of implementing net neutrality relied on authority that the FCC didn't have. But the court also endorsed the spirit of the rules and gave them a legal path forward. The FCC was then free to pursue that path.

Is this not what happened?
 
I believing that removing net neutrality is a power grab helps the cause of net neutrality, just grin and nod and let them unwittingly help a good cause. Arguing their in accuracy won't get the job done.
 
FCC



Awesome, more regulation. Why? Because we can. :roll:

The federal government wants complete control and censorship over the internet...

I'd be banned by the government from posting online for my politics - democrat or republican.
 
Are you seriously against net neutrality?

Anyone who has done any real research into it is against it. Dont let the moniker "net neutrality" make you think that it is something it is not.

They can name any regulatory action with some catchy name, that doesnt make it what it is...politicians are famous for giving horrible legislation some catchy name to make it sound all warm and fuzzy and lovable all the while shoving that knife into your backs deeper and deeper.
 
Anyone who has done any real research into it is against it. Dont let the moniker "net neutrality" make you think that it is something it is not.

They can name any regulatory action with some catchy name, that doesnt make it what it is...politicians are famous for giving horrible legislation some catchy name to make it sound all warm and fuzzy and lovable all the while shoving that knife into your backs deeper and deeper.

So what is "'Net neutrality"?
 
By definition, a Tier 1 network is an IP network which conducts traffic via settlement-free interconnection
Peering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(That means I route your traffic, you route my traffic, and neither of us pays each other)

As for the rest, there is WAY more to it than that. Ever hear of Apache? SSL? osCommerce? Linux? The amount of free software you're using to write those posts is impossible to list. The way the internet works is that you take what's there and use it to produce something new. Then you try and make money off of the new stuff you've made. In return for free use of all of the free stuff that's out there; all you have to do is release any improvements, bug fixes, etc.. to the preexisting infrastructure.

Am I right in assuming that you're not in a tech field? Because I have never met anyone who's livelihood depended on the internet who thought that it was somehow a good idea to allow the least technically innovative participants in the internet to pick winners and losers based on who they could extort the most money from.

Imagine a world in which Google was launched without net neutrality. A far inferior search engine like Altavista could just go to Comcast and buy priority. Even though the new Google search engine has a better search routine, it would lose because Altavista searches would be far faster. Do you really think that's a good idea? Why would we want to discourage competition?

In fact I am in IT. And again, a Tier 1 network is owned by a big corporation. Its not public. They may not pay each other, but someone is paying someone. Routers aren't free, electricity isn't free, tech support isn't free.
 
In fact I am in IT. And again, a Tier 1 network is owned by a big corporation. Its not public. They may not pay each other, but someone is paying someone. Routers aren't free, electricity isn't free, tech support isn't free.

As I said previously:
By definition, a Tier 1 network is an IP network which conducts traffic via settlement-free interconnection. There are seven of them in the US: L3, TeliaSOnera, CenturyLink, Vodafone, Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T. ISPs are Tier 2 and Tier 3 networks. That means your traffic is going to often go Source->T3->T2->T1->T2->T3->You.
 
So what is "'Net neutrality"?

By forcing the internet providers to treat all internet traffic equally, it will result in tiered content charges....kind of like your cell phone plans but a little different.

Rather than charge you by the GB used to view content, they will charge you by the content you view itself...You just want to check e-mails and read the news then you pay X amount access every month. Oh, you want to be allowed to download a song it is X+Y a month. Add in file sharing X+Y+Z.

You only have the XYZ plan and you watched a video on Facebook last month and you dont pay for streaming data, that will cost you an additional X per second watched.

Thats just one of the things the regulations do.

Most of what the proponents claim the "Net Neutrality" is supposed to do has already been done with the fair access act.

The proponents want to re-write existing law and add in a bunch of regulatory crap all hoping that you wont realize it.



Put it like this....the bill is backed by Democrats.
Democrats who are trying to regulate, ban or tax everything under the sun...are the ones wanting this to go through.

just because they are calling it "'Net neutrality" doesnt mean that it is a good thing.

Im going to have some legislation submitted and I am going to call it the "loving puppy act" - you certainly can not vote against it...do you hate loving puppies that much? The law has nothing to do with loving puppies, it actually has to do with exterminating stray animals on the spot, but Im going to call it the "loving puppy act" because...well...how can you vote against it?
 
By forcing the internet providers to treat all internet traffic equally, it will result in tiered content charges....kind of like your cell phone plans but a little different.

Rather than charge you by the GB used to view content, they will charge you by the content you view itself...You just want to check e-mails and read the news then you pay X amount access every month. Oh, you want to be allowed to download a song it is X+Y a month. Add in file sharing X+Y+Z.

You only have the XYZ plan and you watched a video on Facebook last month and you dont pay for streaming data, that will cost you an additional X per second watched.
I think you might have it backwards. Net neutrality prevents tiered access to internet content. It states that you get equal access to every website on the internet by your ISP, and that your ISP cannot block access to content. Without it, Comcast can decide to shut off all of its users' access to competitor content, effectively censoring the internet.
 
Back
Top Bottom