• 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!

President Tells F.C.C. to Ensure Open Internet

Beaudreaux said:
Why would anyone expect that if the government regulated the internet like a utility, that this would be a good thing for the internet? For any of us? The less the government is involved on a day to day basis, the better off we are.
Click to expand...

Because our water, electricity, etc is one of the best in the world. Seriously, watch this video and see what will happen if we don't enact laws protecting net neutrality.

 
PirateMk1 said:
Net neutrality while technically a correct term is very misleading. It boils down to ISP's wanting to not only charge for pipe size and or volume of content (buckets) which they do now, they want to charge for content as well though that content is being delivered by their customers. ALL of their customers pay for their access to the internet, there no free riders. Basically whats going on is Netflix and the rest of the video providers are being extorted. Netflix, et al should be suing their ISP for violation of contract further so should their customers who are paying ISP's as well for the service to receive the content.
Click to expand...

Heya Pirate. :2wave: Verizon will fight this in the court. If the FCC tries to make a set of new rules. The Federal Courts will have a field day with them.


"I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online,” the president said in a surprise statement on Monday. Cable and phone companies should be banned from slowing down or blocking web sites and services, as well as charging more to give some faster access to consumers, Obama said.

Stocks of leading cable and telecom carriers quickly dropped as much as 7% before recovering somewhat. Time Warner Cable, Comcast and Charter Communications (CHTR) were down 4% or more each at midday, while Cablevision Systems (CVC) lost 2%. Shares of Netflix (NFLX), a poster child for net neutrality after it was forced to pay some big Internet providers for better connections to its customers, gained almost 1%......snip~

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama...time-warner-cable-comcast-deal-154738302.html

70786660-6901-11e4-b24f-ed0072572c7e_ycharts_chart-28-.png


Shares of major cable companies dropped after President Obama announced a plan to strengthen net neutrality rules.



This would be like giving the Fed.....card blanc.
 
Declan said:
I am in favor of businesses that rely on other businesses paying their fair share. The market will take care of the rest. This is being sold as a lie on the public by the moocher lobby. AOL's fall from the king of the internet happened precisely because consumers did not like the content walls they put up to favor their own system. In order to evolve to the fiberoptic everywhere system, companies like netflix and facebook need to pay for the privilege too. In addition, as I have already stated, there will be less content to stream if cable falls and the bandwidth hogs drown out competition already. The cloud will also never work well without expensive infrastructure improvements that still need to be built and paid for. You are effectively defending companies that do nothing but evade taxes on ill gotten profits because the idea of "neutrality" blinds you to the practical realities of how what is came to be and what could be will take to happen.
Click to expand...

Netflix et all DO pay for the privilege. The ISP's are violating their contracts to their customers both the end users of content and the content providers. The pipe which the content is streamed is paid for TWICE. The ISP's want to extort their larger customers like Netflix, and Hulu et al. ie get a third bite. Throttling is a violation of the contract they made with their customers. It is not the customers problem if the ISP's oversold their capacity to provide service they promised. Netflix just needs to get their customers to sign up in a class action lawsuit against Comcast and Time Warner for violation of contract. They have already been conclusively proven to be extorting Netflix and have actively violated the terms of their agreements with their customers who just so happen to be mutual customers with Netflix and the rest.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Actually the ISP's are currently violating their contracts with the content providers and their customers and should be sued class action for that violation.
Click to expand...

I'm all for it if that's the plan and that is in fact what is going on currently. I can't believe there are people who oppose net neutrality. The political ramifications simply aren't good either. Could you imagine political parties making back-door deals with ISPs to restrict access to certain websites? You're a Ron Paul supporter? Good luck getting to his websites! You want to use Debate Politics? Great. It's part of a package called "News and Politics".
 
MMC said:
Heya Pirate. :2wave: Verizon will fight this in the court. If the FCC tries to make a set of new rules. The Federal Courts will have a field day with them.


"I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online,” the president said in a surprise statement on Monday. Cable and phone companies should be banned from slowing down or blocking web sites and services, as well as charging more to give some faster access to consumers, Obama said.

Stocks of leading cable and telecom carriers quickly dropped as much as 7% before recovering somewhat. Time Warner Cable, Comcast and Charter Communications (CHTR) were down 4% or more each at midday, while Cablevision Systems (CVC) lost 2%. Shares of Netflix (NFLX), a poster child for net neutrality after it was forced to pay some big Internet providers for better connections to its customers, gained almost 1%......snip~

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama...time-warner-cable-comcast-deal-154738302.html

70786660-6901-11e4-b24f-ed0072572c7e_ycharts_chart-28-.png


Shares of major cable companies dropped after President Obama announced a plan to strengthen net neutrality rules.



This would be like giving the Fed.....card blanc.
Click to expand...

Netflix doesn't need the Feds. They just need to man up, get some lawyers and go kick Comcasts and Time Warners asses. Netflix can prove damages right now. Sometimes I wonder if the only thing coming out of business schools these days are bunch of mealy mouthed scared ******s.
 
Hatuey said:
....What you're arguing is essentially that:

- you don't want the government restricting ISPs from charging you extra depending on content
- that you're fine with ISPs having the power to charge consumers twice, once for the pipeline and then the content

Am I getting that right?

- You don't want the government to ensure that water suppliers are providing clean water
- You're fine with being charged for water use
- and then charging you again drinking it.

You realize that yes?
Click to expand...

No you did not get that right. I was careful to say "on a day to day basis." Congress passing Net Neutrality laws are a different thing all together.

Personally I feel that I am getting ripped off by the ISP's by their charging me to access the internet and then charging the content providers for supplying content for the ISP's customers that I end up paying for in increased fees (charging me twice) and then throttling my connection to certain content providers (like Netflix) which I have documented and sent to my Congressman as evidence for the need for legislation. The internet should not be regulated like a utility by the FCC - that would only lead to higher fees, less quality and less content... as well as potential censorship.
 
Your Star said:
Because our water, electricity, etc is one of the best in the world. Seriously, watch this video and see what will happen if we don't enact laws protecting net neutrality.

Click to expand...


I know what Net Neutrality is, and support it completely, including legislation to make it law. I do not support the FCC regulating the internet (no gay sites, no unlimited access to sites that may be "questionable" in their content, etc.). The FCC regulates what we can and cannot see or hear on the TV and radio - I do not want them having that power over the internet. Can you imagine Ted Cruz being in charge of the FCC internet oversight committee?
 
Hatuey said:
I'm all for it if that's the plan and that is in fact what is going on currently. I can't believe there are people who oppose net neutrality. The political ramifications simply aren't good either. Could you imagine political parties making back-door deals with ISPs to restrict access to certain websites? You're a Ron Paul supporter? Good luck getting to his websites! You want to use Debate Politics? Great. It's part of a package called "News and Politics".
Click to expand...

There doesn't need to be fed regulation just a bunch of lawsuits over contract violations. Large lawsuits. Comcast, Time Warner and the rest need to get their ass's kicked around a bit by their customers. Most ISP's in this country do not provide what is advertised in speed. You go to another country they not only provide what is advertised but generally do a bit better. AOL tried the walled garden approach to the internet. Didn't work too well for them. When I buy a pipe I expect a minimum of the advertised performance.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I know what Net Neutrality is, and support it completely, including legislation to make it law. I do not support the FCC regulating the internet (no gay sites, no unlimited access to sites that may be "questionable" in their content, etc.). The FCC regulates what we can and cannot see or hear on the TV and radio - I do not want them having that power over the internet. Can you imagine Ted Cruz being in charge of the FCC internet oversight committee?
Click to expand...

I agree, but that isn't what we are talking about, nor do a significant number of people support such a thing.
 
Your Star said:
I agree, but that isn't what we are talking about, nor do a significant number of people support such a thing.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that what I stated is supported by anyone. I simply give you a look into the future if the FCC gets its hands around the throat of the internet.

It will end badly.
 
Beaudreaux said:
No you did not get that right. I was careful to say "on a day to day basis." Congress passing Net Neutrality laws are a different thing all together.

Personally I feel that I am getting ripped off by the ISP's by their charging me to access the internet and then charging the content providers for supplying content for the ISP's customers that I end up paying for in increased fees (charging me twice) and then throttling my connection to certain content providers (like Netflix) which I have documented and sent to my Congressman as evidence for the need for legislation. The internet should not be regulated like a utility by the FCC - that would only lead to higher fees, less quality and less content... as well as potential censorship.
Click to expand...

At least we can agree that what the companies are trying to do is something neither of us wants. I don't know how I stand on the FCC regulating the internet. I just know it's definitely a better option than standing in opposition to net neutrality and leaving it up to the companies to decide. I think there is a common ground and that is passing legislation where companies who are reported several times to DA office must come under immediate investigation. If they're found guilty there should be a mandatory fine in the millions. If states do not want to prosecute them, that's up to them and their constituents to deal with. However, some sort of regulation/legislation really is needed and that is not debatable IMO.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I'm not saying that what I stated is supported by anyone. I simply give you a look into the future if the FCC gets its hands around the throat of the internet.

It will end badly.
Click to expand...

Having FCC regulations that protect a free and open internet and letting them censor the internet like they do TV and radio is not the same thing, nor even related. It's a classic example of the slippery slope fallacy.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Netflix doesn't need the Feds. They just need to man up, get some lawyers and go kick Comcasts and Time Warners asses. Netflix can prove damages right now. Sometimes I wonder if the only thing coming out of business schools these days are bunch of mealy mouthed scared ******s.
Click to expand...


What do you think Wheeler is saying here?

Still, even if the full proposal is blocked or watered down, it should invigorate and widen the debate, which will likely make the end result closer to what proponents of an open Internet seek. FCC chairman Wheeler has been discussing focusing heavier regulation on Internet connections among big companies, including cable and telecom companies, web sites like Netflix and network wholesalers like Level 3 Communications (LVLT), not consumer connections. He reacted with caution to Obama's statement. "We must take the time to get the job done correctly, once and for all, in order to successfully protect consumers and innovators online," Wheeler said.

3. On the other hand, Obama is not seeking to regulate the Internet to the same degree as traditional telecommunications rules. While anti-discrimination rules would be enforced, Obama said he did not favor pricing regulations or other “less relevant” types of rules.....snip~


Just because BO does not favor pricing regulations.....or Other Less Relevant type of rules. Doesn't mean the Fed won't huh?
 
Hatuey said:
At least we can agree that what the companies are trying to do is something neither of us wants. I don't know how I stand on the FCC regulating the internet. I just know it's definitely a better option than standing in opposition to net neutrality and leaving it up to the companies to decide. I think there is a common ground and that is passing legislation where companies who are reported several times to DA office must come under immediate investigation. If they're found guilty there should be a mandatory fine in the millions. If states do not want to prosecute them, that's up to them and their constituents to deal with. However, some sort of regulation/legislation really is needed and that is not debatable IMO.
Click to expand...

It would be a federal law and federal prosecution by the US DOJ. The Constitution gives the Congress in in Article One, Section Eight, the power to regulate Interstate Commerce, and the internet definitely qualifies under that term.

But, then we get into the next problem. Letting Congress write a bill that is influenced by the big ISP pipe owners as well as the menagerie of copyright holding companies like the music and movie industries. They already tried twice over the last few years with SOPA and PIPA. Both monstrosities that would have killed part of the freedom that the internet provides.

Giving a bureaucratic organization like the FCC the power to regulate and control the internet can only end badly for free expression and unfettered access to anything and everything - what makes the internet so valuable a resource to the world.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
Having FCC regulations that protect a free and open internet and letting them censor the internet like they do TV and radio is not the same thing, nor even related. It's a classic example of the slippery slope fallacy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not really possible for the FCC to really restrict television the way they do TV/Radio. How would they restrict profanity/nudity/violence on the internet? It would mean somehow creating software capable of #1 inspecting the zettabites of information out there and #2 censoring. It's unrealistic and would bring far more lawsuits than they really need.
 
Your Star said:
Having FCC regulations that protect a free and open internet and letting them censor the internet like they do TV and radio is not the same thing, nor even related. It's a classic example of the slippery slope fallacy.
Click to expand...

I deal with the federal government daily, and their ability to transgress and transcend their limited authority is why I have a job. If it were not for federal officials making restrictive decisions that they do not have the power to do, I would have to find a real job.
 
Hatuey said:
Yeah, it's not really possible for the FCC to really restrict television the way they do TV/Radio. How would they restrict profanity/nudity/violence on the internet? It would mean somehow creating software capable of #1 inspecting the zettabites of information out there and #2 censoring. It's unrealistic and would bring far more lawsuits than they really need.
Click to expand...

Simple. Restrict our access to such content, and then... prosecute us when we do anyway by requiring the ISP's to report us for doing so. The NSA already has the software to do it, and has required the ISP's to give the information to them now.
 
Beaudreaux said:
It would a federal law and federal prosecution by the US DOJ. The Constitution gives the Congress in in Article One, Section Eight, the power to regulate Interstate Commerce, and the internet definitely qualifies under that term.

But, then we get into the next problem. Letting Congress write a bill that is influenced by the big ISP pipe owners as well as the menagerie of copyright holding companies like the music and movie industries. They already tried twice over the last few years with SOPA and PIPA. Both monstrosities that would have killed part of the freedom that the internet provides.

Giving a bureaucratic organization like the FCC the power to regulate and control the internet can only end badly for free expression and unfettered access to anything and everything - what makes the internet so valuable a resource to the world.
Click to expand...

I have no issue with the 1st and 2nd paragraph but the 3rd paragraph seems off. The way it's looking, the FCC is being put in charge of regulating the way the internet is distributed. Not the actual content of it. In any case, censoring content on the internet is not a possibility. Not only would it not fly, any part in support of it would ensure never being voted into power again by the generation growing up with internet.
 
MMC said:
What do you think Wheeler is saying here?

Still, even if the full proposal is blocked or watered down, it should invigorate and widen the debate, which will likely make the end result closer to what proponents of an open Internet seek. FCC chairman Wheeler has been discussing focusing heavier regulation on Internet connections among big companies, including cable and telecom companies, web sites like Netflix and network wholesalers like Level 3 Communications (LVLT), not consumer connections. He reacted with caution to Obama's statement. "We must take the time to get the job done correctly, once and for all, in order to successfully protect consumers and innovators online," Wheeler said.

3. On the other hand, Obama is not seeking to regulate the Internet to the same degree as traditional telecommunications rules. While anti-discrimination rules would be enforced, Obama said he did not favor pricing regulations or other “less relevant” types of rules.....snip~


Just because BO does not favor pricing regulations.....or Other Less Relevant type of rules. Doesn't mean the Fed won't huh?
Click to expand...

The Feds need to stay out, except for one thing and that is strip the telco and cable companies monopolies in local areas. Even the areas with negotiated contracts with the cable and Telco's. Let anyone who has the money in. That will rattle some cages.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Simple. Restrict our access to such content, and then... prosecute us when we do anyway by requiring the ISP's to report us for doing so. The NSA already has the software to do it, and has required the ISP's to give the information to them now.
Click to expand...

This has to do with violations of freedom of speech. It has already been determined in a few courts that governments have no right to restrict a person from accessing information or someone from putting it up. So for example, say you wanted to look up bomb making material on the internet. If the FCC tried to restrict you from it, they'd basically have to argue that there is information which you have no right to access. That's a tough sell in any SCOTUS court.
 
Hatuey said:
I have no issue with the 1st and 2nd paragraph but the 3rd paragraph seems off. The way it's looking, the FCC is being put in charge of regulating the way the internet is distributed. Not the actual content of it. In any case, censoring content on the internet is not a possibility. Not only would it not fly, any part in support of it would ensure never being voted into power again by the generation growing up with internet.
Click to expand...

The only thing I trust politicians and especially bureaucrats to do, is screw up what ever they touch.
 
Your Star said:
Having FCC regulations that protect a free and open internet and letting them censor the internet like they do TV and radio is not the same thing, nor even related. It's a classic example of the slippery slope fallacy.
Click to expand...
The only thing that the FCC needs to do is strip the monopolies of the cable and telico's, let others come and play in their turf. That's it. The rest is simple contract enforcement. Which Netflix needs to get off their ass and do. As well as us. You would think there would be lawyers out there chomping on the bit to go steal some money from the cable monopolies with such a easy case to make for fraudulent practices.
 
Hatuey said:
This has to do with violations of freedom of speech. It has already been determined in a few courts that governments have no right to restrict a person from accessing information or someone from putting it up. So for example, say you wanted to look up bomb making material on the internet. If the FCC tried to restrict you from it, they'd basically have to argue that there is information which you have no right to access. That's a tough sell in any SCOTUS court.
Click to expand...

I would agree, to the point that given what happened after WWII, and after 9/11, I don't trust the government to not tell me what THEY feel I need to do and know and restrict me to only that.

Maybe I'm overstating my position, but I am seriously concerned with letting the FCC (or any federal agency) get ANY control over the internet.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The only thing I trust politicians and especially bureaucrats to do, is screw up what ever they touch.
Click to expand...

Read the post above yours. Restricting content on the internet is no different than banning books at federal libraries. Say the government decided to censor books like Mein Kempf or the Communist Manifesto on the grounds that access to it could corrupt the minds of the young. They'd basically have to argue that you don't have a right to that information. That's a pretty big violation of freedom of speech. Access to information is covered under the 1st in the same way dissemination of said information.
 
PirateMk1 said:
The Feds need to stay out, except for one thing and that is strip the telco and cable companies monopolies in local areas. Even the areas with negotiated contracts with the cable and Telco's. Let anyone who has the money in. That will rattle some cages.
Click to expand...


Huff Po is putting it out as BO wants the Strongest Possible rules.....Wheeler says everything is on the table.

On Monday, President Barack Obama came out in favor of the "strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality," endorsing a popular proposal that would empower the Federal Communications Commission to require Internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally and not charge content providers for better access.

"We cannot allow Internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas," Obama said in a statement.

Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that the FCC was considering a "hybrid" compromise that would empower ISPs to make deals with companies to allow for faster content delivery, while still allowing for oversight.....snip~

Obama Urges FCC To Set 'Strongest Possible Rules' To Protect Net Neutrality
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom