• 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!

No fast or slow lanes for Internet? New rules proposed

I am opposed to any kind of throttling on traffic outside that (apart from the limitations of the internet hardware itself).

..

Obviously you've never had to be a satellite ISP user. Removing throttling would increase my monthly bill by 10 times. No thanks. I'd rather manage the throttling.
 
Because I trust the free market more than I do govt.
Me too. Problem is that the telecommunications industry does not operate in a free market--not even close. The telecommunications industry is a government created corporatist, monopolistic nightmare. Why you would allow a government created nightmare to do whatever it wants and then criticize efforts to make it less horrible is puzzling to say the least.
 
Me too. Problem is that the telecommunications industry does not operate in a free market--not even close. The telecommunications industry is a government created corporatist, monopolistic nightmare. Why you would allow a government created nightmare to do whatever it wants and then criticize efforts to make it less horrible is puzzling to say the least.

I dont see how the solution to a government created corporatist, monopolistic nightmare is more govt. Shouldnt it be less?
 
I dont see how the solution to a government created corporatist, monopolistic nightmare is more govt. Shouldnt it be less?
The best solution is getting rid of the government created nightmare and allowing a free market to exist. But that isn't on the table unfortunately, so the next best thing is to regulate it so it's government-granted privileges cannot further reduce competition.
 
You're on the wrong track. Think of the frog that is slowly boiled to death. Bye the time he realizes things have gone terribly wrong, it's too late.

Slippery slope is called a fallacy for a reason.

If lightbulbs are the best you've got, we're a long way from tyranny.
 
The best solution is getting rid of the government created nightmare and allowing a free market to exist. But that isn't on the table unfortunately, so the next best thing is to regulate it so it's government-granted privileges cannot further reduce competition.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.
 
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
That's a nice platitude, but doesn't change anything. If net neutrality does not get encoded into law, the political and corporate elite are not suddenly going to say "you know what, let's end the special privileges for the telecommunications industry and make it a free market." Only a fool would believe such nonsense. The result will be the greater of two evils, when progress could have been made towards a lesser one.
 
I don't know... Of course, we need to watch out for the government not to expand it power too much, but in this particular case...
I've been watching this debate for some time, and as far as I understand, for once in a while our government is doing the right thing. It restricts the companies from making the user to pay not only for the Internet access, but also for access to certain sites. Just imagine you were forced to pay extra if you wanted to access Youtube, for example. Or this forum...

This doesn't save you from paying for Youtube, this will leave the ISPs having to issue blanket cost increases to cover their lack of QoS controls which are the bedrock of consumer internet cost controls.
 
Slippery slope is called a fallacy for a reason.

If lightbulbs are the best you've got, we're a long way from tyranny.

It's not the light bulbs, it's the fact the the federal government is all the way down into our lives so much as to ban a light bulb. The fact that you are pointing out that light bulbs so insignificant actually bolsters the case.

You are the frog.
 
Obviously you've never had to be a satellite ISP user. Removing throttling would increase my monthly bill by 10 times. No thanks. I'd rather manage the throttling.
So you're saying to save money you accept the throttled speed, because higher speed would be way too expensive.

But is that expense based on the costs of the system? OR on the company that owns it wanting to make more profit?
 
It's not the light bulbs, it's the fact the the federal government is all the way down into our lives so much as to ban a light bulb. The fact that you are pointing out that light bulbs so insignificant actually bolsters the case.

You are the frog.

No, the fact that you are pointing out light bulbs bolsters my case. If you had something real, you wouldn't be talking about lightbulbs.

Energy efficiency standards are a reasonable method for ensuring the public has continued access to reliable, affordable electrical power without requiring massive infrastructure upgrades, and that's why Republicans signed the light bulb thing into law.
 
This doesn't save you from paying for Youtube, this will leave the ISPs having to issue blanket cost increases to cover their lack of QoS controls which are the bedrock of consumer internet cost controls.


QoS controls are still allowed.
 
No, the fact that you are pointing out light bulbs bolsters my case. If you had something real, you wouldn't be talking about lightbulbs.

Energy efficiency standards are a reasonable method for ensuring the public has continued access to reliable, affordable electrical power without requiring massive infrastructure upgrades, and that's why Republicans signed the light bulb thing into law.

You are not getting the point. The fact that you are dwelling on "energy efficiency standards" proves that you are missing the big picture. The important picture. Energy efficiency is irrelevant.
 
That's a nice platitude, but doesn't change anything. If net neutrality does not get encoded into law, the political and corporate elite are not suddenly going to say "you know what, let's end the special privileges for the telecommunications industry and make it a free market." Only a fool would believe such nonsense. The result will be the greater of two evils, when progress could have been made towards a lesser one.

It doesnt change that Im right. This is a debate forum, not a decision forum. I dont have to be realistic. I can be idealistic. Govt sponsored monopolies are wrong, and so is govt control. I dont have to endorse or vote for either.
 
It doesnt change that Im right. This is a debate forum, not a decision forum. I dont have to be realistic. I can be idealistic. Govt sponsored monopolies are wrong, and so is govt control. I dont have to endorse or vote for either.
We are debating the proper decision. What a stupid comment. You can keep your head in the clouds, but back here on planet earth stopping net neutrality means expanding government sponsored monopolies. That's reality, like it or not.
 
So you're saying to save money you accept the throttled speed, because higher speed would be way too expensive.

But is that expense based on the costs of the system? OR on the company that owns it wanting to make more profit?

Probably both. What satellite ISP's grapple with is limited bandwidth. If too many people use too much of it. It slows down performance for everyone. So they sell a data allowance package just like the cell phone providers do. The throttling occurs when that allowance is used up. They open things up in the middle of the night when internet usage slows. That is a limitation of the equipment since all of it has to fit in an orbiting satellite. At the same time they are happy to sell more allowance to users and that certainly contributes to corporate profit. The cell phone providers, as far as I know, don't throttle, they just tack "minutes" onto the bill. I don't like that at all.

You can't manage a satellite system like you do a land based one. Unless there is an exception for satellite, the new rule will put satellite ISP's out of business by limiting the number of subscribers they can handle. It will raise subscription costs a whole bunch.
 
We are debating the proper decision. What a stupid comment. You can keep your head in the clouds, but back here on planet earth stopping net neutrality means expanding government sponsored monopolies. That's reality, like it or not.

Enabling net neutrality means expanding govt monopolies. Youll see.
 
This government lies about everything, how could anyone but a goosestepping blind follower trust anything they say? Kiss your 1st amendment rights goodbye on the internet if they somehow muscle this through.
 
This government lies about everything, how could anyone but a goosestepping blind follower trust anything they say? Kiss your 1st amendment rights goodbye on the internet if they somehow muscle this through.

Title II regulates telephone service and cable TV already. Would you say your first amendment rights were taken away by that?
 
Back
Top Bottom