• 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!

Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

Ah, so that's it, then. The moment the noise makers were able to turn net neutrality into a left-vs-right issue, that would be the beginning of the end. Once anything enters the culture war, 50% of the population will automatically support it, and bam...a policy is made.
 
Gotta watch these politicians.
President Obama's public stance that the FCC should reclassify broadband internet services as a Title II "common carrier" under the current Telecommunications Act carries many ramifications, but one is undeniable: there's going to be a hidden tax hike, and it's going to be paid for by consumers.
Title II common carriers are required to "contribute" to what's called the Universal Service Fund - a government program to bring telecommunications services to underserved areas with the goal of universal coverage. Whether it's called "contributions" or fees or whatnot, the function of the program is a tax on corporate revenues in order to fund services for those who might not have them otherwise. It's a redistributive corporate tax paid for by consumers.

The USF tax amounts to more than a 16% charge on top of consumers' bills. As broadband service providers are not currently subject to the USF tax, a reclassification would mean that all consumers would see a jump around that size in their bill. Considering that in some locales, the cheapest broadband service runs upwards of $50 per month, this will cost even the most price-conscious consumers an extra $100 per year - and for those at higher tiers, much more than that.

FCC commissioners past and present have agreed that the this net neutrality tax is unavoidable in a Title II reclassification scenario. In a discussion at the National Press Club on Friday, current FCC commissioner Ajit Pai laid out exactly what consumers would be seeing on their bills.

"Public utility regulation would mean higher broadband prices for consumers," Pai said. "Once broadband is classified as a telecommunications service, universal service charges would be assessed on carriers' broadband services. Many state and local taxes would automatically kick in."

"The net result is that every single American broadband customer would have to pay a new tax - or taxes - to access the internet."

An FCC decision to go with title II reclassification in order to enforce new net neutrality regulations would have a lot of deleterious effects. One of the most obvious is that it would be a tax hike on a service that the government believes is essential to American life.
Click to expand...
The Net Neutrality Tax Hike - Kevin Glass

So, you really think this is all about protecting the consumer from what appears to be a really thin argument about content delivery?

More likely this is yet another money grab by the out of touch DC politicians. Who've never met at tax they didn't like.

cb111514dAPC20141114034517.jpg
 
eohrnberger said:
Gotta watch these politicians.
The Net Neutrality Tax Hike - Kevin Glass

So, you really think this is all about protecting the consumer from what appears to be a really thin argument about content delivery?

More likely this is yet another money grab by the out of touch DC politicians. Who've never met at tax they didn't like.

cb111514dAPC20141114034517.jpg
Click to expand...

So you're more worried about an imaginary future tax than your isp determining your bandwidth based on the sites that they want you to use?
 
Cardinal said:
So you're more worried about an imaginary future tax than your isp determining your bandwidth based on the sites that they want you to use?
Click to expand...

I don't believe that it's 'imaginary future tax', I believe that it's part and parcel of categorizing the service as Title II "common carrier".
 
eohrnberger said:
I don't believe that it's 'imaginary future tax', I believe that it's part and parcel of categorizing the service as Title II "common carrier".
Click to expand...

And you're more worried about that potentiality than your isp determining your bandwidth based on the sites they want you to use? When all the sites have had their fees jacked in order to access the faster bandwidth (including your own if you have your own site or business) where do you think those costs are going to fall?
 
Cardinal said:
And you're more worried about that potentiality than your isp determining your bandwidth based on the sites they want you to use? When all the sites have had their fees jacked in order to access the faster bandwidth (including your own if you have your own site or business) where do you think those costs are going to fall?
Click to expand...

Less worried about that. More worried about government ****ing up the Internet, considering how important for the future the Internet is.

We've gotten this far without these regulations, I don't see the problems these regulations are designed to address as being significant, and I shudder at the risk and implication of the government ****ing the Internet up by having their fingers in it. The government involvement is not needed for this issue.

I see that you are committing a 'false flag' operation, labeling yourself as a Conservative. Face it. You are not.
 
eohrnberger said:
Less worried about that.
Click to expand...

Why? The only reason for not being worried about it, as far as I can see, is that you don't understand net neutrality.

eohrnberger said:
More worried about government ****ing up the Internet, considering how important for the future the Internet is.

We've gotten this far without these regulations, I don't see the problems these regulations are designed to address as being significant, and I shudder at the risk and implication of the government ****ing the Internet up by having their fingers in it. The government involvement is not needed for this issue.

I see that you are committing a 'false flag' operation, labeling yourself as a Conservative. Face it. You are not.
Click to expand...
 
Cardinal said:
Why? The only reason for not being worried about it, as far as I can see, is that you don't understand net neutrality.
Click to expand...

No, I understand the issues of Net Neutrality just fine. Has to do with the deals between content providers and ISPs, where ISPs are demanding money from content providers for delivering their content. The longer and harder the conflict goes on, the more both businesses damage themselves. To date, the one conflict that we have information on lasted all of 3 months. No big deal if you ask me.

Once the government has it's hands in and on the Internet, in the form regulations, it'll never leave, or get out of it, and the government has proven itself far from being honest and trustworthy, especially this president, this administration and this congress.

I can imagine a back door mandate to block or slow down political opponents content. The recent Gruber videos? Undeliverable.

The government has a track record of doing this. Telephone and mobile carriers are classified the same way, right? How often has the government demanded data from them and hidden it? Even user data they've demanded and obtained this way. Do you think that once classified as utilities, that ISPs are somehow exempt from the same sort of demands? I'm thinking not.

So it is a data privacy issue. Yes, I know, a subpena from the FISA court is all it takes, but better at least a cursory legal review than less than that.
 
eohrnberger said:
No, I understand the issues of Net Neutrality just fine. Has to do with the deals between content providers and ISPs, where ISPs are demanding money from content providers for delivering their content. The longer and harder the conflict goes on, the more both businesses damage themselves. To date, the one conflict that we have information on lasted all of 3 months. No big deal if you ask me.

Once the government has it's hands in and on the Internet, in the form regulations, it'll never leave, or get out of it, and the government has proven itself far from being honest and trustworthy, especially this president, this administration and this congress.

I can imagine a back door mandate to block or slow down political opponents content. The recent Gruber videos? Undeliverable.

The government has a track record of doing this. Telephone and mobile carriers are classified the same way, right? How often has the government demanded data from them and hidden it? Even user data they've demanded and obtained this way. Do you think that once classified as utilities, that ISPs are somehow exempt from the same sort of demands? I'm thinking not.

So it is a data privacy issue. Yes, I know, a subpena from the FISA court is all it takes, but better at least a cursory legal review than less than that.
Click to expand...

What do you mean, "Once the government has its hands in and on the internet in for the form of regulations?" You do understand that it's government regulation that has maintained net neutrality, don't you? Government regulations are why your ability to access the internet has always been the same wherever you go (depending on the servers of each site, of course). You say you understand net neutrality, but then you demonstrate the exact opposite.
 
Cardinal said:
What do you mean, "Once the government has its hands in and on the internet in for the form of regulations?" You do understand that it's government regulation that has maintained net neutrality, don't you? Government regulations are why your ability to access the internet has always been the same wherever you go (depending on the servers of each site, of course). You say you understand net neutrality, but then you demonstrate the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

And no further regulations are required, IMHO.
 
eohrnberger said:
And no further regulations are required, IMHO.
Click to expand...

No further regulations are required, so get rid of the regulations that have worked to ensure net neutrality for the past twenty years? You're not making a lick of sense.
 
Cardinal said:
No further regulations are required, so get rid of the regulations that have worked to ensure net neutrality for the past twenty years? You're not making a lick of sense.
Click to expand...

Net Neutrality regulations are not new? Reclassifying ISPs as utilities is not new? Sorry, but that is new.

The Internet is working just fine as it is and requires no further government regulations to screw it up. Often, such as in this case, more government regulation isn't the best and only answer.
 
eohrnberger said:
Net Neutrality regulations are not new?
Click to expand...

No. The concept in any official sense goes back to 2003. Again, it is what has prevented your isp from funneling your internet use to services you have paid extra for. Net neutrality is why you have enjoyed the internet as you have for over a decade, and it is the deregulating of the internet that will change that.
Reclassifying ISPs as utilities is not new? Sorry, but that is new.

The Internet is working just fine as it is and requires no further government regulations to screw it up. Often, such as in this case, more government regulation isn't the best and only answer.
Click to expand...

And if you really believe that it is working just fine as it is, then you will support net neutrality.
 
Cardinal said:
No. The concept in any official sense goes back to 2003. Again, it is what has prevented your isp from funneling your internet use to services you have paid extra for. Net neutrality is why you have enjoyed the internet as you have for over a decade, and it is the deregulating of the internet that will change that.


And if you really believe that it is working just fine as it is, then you will support net neutrality.
Click to expand...

So if Net Neutrality has been part of the landscape for all those years, why do we need yet more regulation? Has some sort of regulation expired? I've not heard about any of that. I don't think that any has.

Fundamentally, the present Net Neutrality proposal is a solution seeking a problem. The Internet is working just fine as it is.
 
eohrnberger said:
So if Net Neutrality has been part of the landscape for all those years, why do we need yet more regulation? Has some sort of regulation expired? I've not heard about any of that. I don't think that any has.

Fundamentally, the present Net Neutrality proposal is a solution seeking a problem. The Internet is working just fine as it is.
Click to expand...

Are you deliberately being obtuse? Again, the reason the internet is "working just fine as it is" is because we've had net neutrality all these years. Before you slam the reply button read that sentence slowly and give it a chance to sink in.
 
Cardinal said:
Are you deliberately being obtuse? Again, the reason the internet is "working just fine as it is" is because we've had net neutrality all these years. Before you slam the reply button read that sentence slowly and give it a chance to sink in.
Click to expand...

If "we've had net neutrality all these years", why is there a need for yet more regulation? Apparently it's working just fine.
 
eohrnberger said:
And no further regulations are required, IMHO.
Click to expand...

They are now, because recently one of those key regulations was overturned by a federal court. Net neutrality.

You always had it, until last January. Now you don't have it, but you should want it back.

eohrnberger said:
If "we've had net neutrality all these years", why is there a need for yet more regulation? Apparently it's working just fine.
Click to expand...

Not anymore. Net neutrality ended recently. Understand now? All us terrifying liberals are asking for is to go back to the set of regulations we've always had, because those worked very, very well.
 
eohrnberger said:
If "we've had net neutrality all these years", why is there a need for yet more regulation? Apparently it's working just fine.
Click to expand...

Because as the regulation has been overturned, the regulation will need to be put back so that the internet can continue to work just fine.

Yes, I'm just parroting Deuce here, but maybe with the message coming from both of us instead of just me, the idea will start to sink in.
 
Deuce said:
They are now, because recently one of those key regulations was overturned by a federal court. Net neutrality.

You always had it, until last January. Now you don't have it, but you should want it back.
Click to expand...

And that's the missing piece of the puzzle. Thank you.

Deciding a lawsuit brought by Verizon, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the rules. The court said the FCC saddled broadband providers with the same sorts of obligations as traditional "common carrier" telecommunications services, such as landline phone systems, even though the commission had explicitly decided not to classify broadband as a telecom service.

"Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the commission from nonetheless regulating them as such," Judge David Tatel wrote for the court.
. . .
Tony Wible, an analyst at Janney Capital Markets, said Internet companies would mount a fight to avoid paying new fees, but he said it was inevitable that over time some of the burden of paying for Internet infrastructure to handle bulging traffic would shift to content providers or consumers in the form of usage-based billing.
Click to expand...
Appeals Court Strikes Down FCC's Net Neutrality Rules - WSJ

It's really burdensome to the ISPs to implement some sort of per-packet charging system. There's just much traffic running across their lines. So basically, I'm reading here that due to the success in the market of Internet based content and the demand which has been growing for years and years, the consumer is going to end up paying the price.

We should be clear about something: cable companies are at the mercy of content companies on the issue of content rights and use. Time Warner Cable and Comcast have to go into the content market, pay Disney, and negotiate how and in what way they can use that signal. You see them pushing very hard to iterate their experience and get on devices like the iPad and iPhone. Can I put the guide there? Can I put the content there? Can I stream a linear stream? That problem is never technological — they can do that and a lot more very quickly. The issue most frequently is licensing rights.
Click to expand...
Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell: 'Cable companies are at the mercy of content companies' | The Verge

So if these particular Net Nutrality regulations go into place, who's going to meet the demand in the market, if the companies that have to invest in the infrastructure aren't certain they can get a return on their investment?

AT&T delays fiber optic plans pending net neutrality debate | Computerworld

Government regulations hardly ever enable a competitive market, they create monopolies. I don't think that these Net Neutrality regulations will do so either. Better, I think, to allow market forces to determine this outcome.
 
Cardinal said:
Ah, so that's it, then. The moment the noise makers were able to turn net neutrality into a left-vs-right issue, that would be the beginning of the end. Once anything enters the culture war, 50% of the population will automatically support it, and bam...a policy is made.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Obama should have come out opposed ;)
 
eohrnberger said:
Government regulations hardly ever enable a competitive market, they create monopolies. I don't think that these Net Neutrality regulations will do so either. Better, I think, to allow market forces to determine this outcome.
Click to expand...

Really? So, the internet wasn't competitive under net neutrality?
 
Deuce said:
Really? So, the internet wasn't competitive under net neutrality?
Click to expand...

Yes. Historically, government regulation creates and enables monopolies in the form of crony capitalism, which is just government subsidized monopolies.
 
eohrnberger said:
Yes. Historically, government regulation creates and enables monopolies in the form of crony capitalism, which is just government subsidized monopolies.
Click to expand...

... the ISPs are the monopolies, and there are a lot of reasons why they're monopolies beyond scary government regulations. Google has poured billions into starting up an ISP in... two cities. It takes that level of financial backing to try and get into this business.

Like electrical generation, internet access is a service that simply doesn't lend itself well to truly free competition. The infrastructure required is tremendous.
 
Deuce said:
... the ISPs are the monopolies, and there are a lot of reasons why they're monopolies beyond scary government regulations. Google has poured billions into starting up an ISP in... two cities. It takes that level of financial backing to try and get into this business.

Like electrical generation, internet access is a service that simply doesn't lend itself well to truly free competition. The infrastructure required is tremendous.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Seems that you could be a small time ISP right out of your basement. You could subscribe to a high speed connection, set up a WiFi and sell it to your neighbors for the cost of the high speed line. There are range extenders for WiFi, some can go up to 3km. Now is this economically feasible? I have no idea. Might be. Might not be. But it's an alternative that IS technically feasible. Might just require some will to exercise it.

There are also wireless mesh network WiFi, where hacked WiFi routers are used as exchange points in a mesh network structure, and another WiFi router right next to it for access (or possibly in the same device depending on capability).
A wireless mesh network (WMN) is a communications network made up of radio nodes organized in a mesh topology. It is also a form of wireless ad hoc network. Wireless mesh networks often consist of mesh clients, mesh routers and gateways. The mesh clients are often laptops, cell phones and other wireless devices while the mesh routers forward traffic to and from the gateways which may, but need not, connect to the Internet. The coverage area of the radio nodes working as a single network is sometimes called a mesh cloud. Access to this mesh cloud is dependent on the radio nodes working in harmony with each other to create a radio network. A mesh network is reliable and offers redundancy. When one node can no longer operate, the rest of the nodes can still communicate with each other, directly or through one or more intermediate nodes. Wireless mesh networks can self form and self heal. Wireless mesh networks can be implemented with various wireless technology including 802.11, 802.15, 802.16, cellular technologies or combinations of more than one type.
Click to expand...
Wireless mesh network - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Open-Mesh | Cloud-Managed Wireless Networks

EDIT:
In fact:
Project Meshnet aims to build a sustainable, decentralized, alternative internet. You can help in several ways, from spreading the word, starting up your first Cjdns node, or starting a local meshnet group called a MeshLocal.
Click to expand...
https://projectmeshnet.org/

So no, I don't believe that ISPs are as locked in a monopoly that you might be thinking they are.
 
Last edited:
tacomancer said:
Exactly. Obama should have come out opposed ;)
Click to expand...

No, you know what? I'm ****ing serious. Comcast won. Comcast ****ing won. They paid off some corrupt politician, and in return that politician spouted to the press that net neutrality was a liberal-vs-conservative issue knowing it would work because all he had to do was say the words "Obama" and "Obamacare" in the same sentence and that was the end of it: every hack conservative across the country perked up like gophers and said "What? You mean net neutrality was a liberal plot all along? Screw my own interests! DOWN WITH NET NEUTRALITY!" And now in probably a year or two we're all going to be paying for every goddamn site we want to visit and conservatives will sit in smug satisfaction that another liberal conspiracy was crushed. After Rubio's comments I heard every conservative's brain across the country slam shut like a bear trap. Just keep an eye on every net neutrality debate that happens from now on and tell me I'm wrong. The topic of net neutrality might as well be abortion from now on, as people are going to fall along political lines in the exact, identical way. Now we'll all be too busy fighting each other as every internet provider walks away counting our money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom