• 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

Answer my question and I'll answer yours. The claim is that this stifles innovation. Demonstrate this for us poor Statists.

Of course it does. Once we have massive federal regulations in place there will only be innovation the federal government demands. Look at any other utility and give me examples of innovation occurring. It does not happen because companies cannot recoup their costs.
 
`
Wrong. It's because the REAL enemy of the US is not the government, Islamics, communists, Tea Party or religious right ---- It's the banks and corporations.

The federal government, at this point in our history is the greatest threat Americans face. Banks, or for that matter corporations cannot tax you, cannot force you to buy or use them. And they cannot put you in prison.
 
How do you know we are getting a "massive new federal bureacracy?"

In every area that is regulated by the federal government a massive bureaucracy is created. Add massive new powers to control our lives and Big Brother will be hiring busybodies to enforce their laws and create new ones every couple of weeks. I know we will because I have had my eyes open.
 
`
The banks and corporations already own this government.

Nonsense. You have that backward. We have a fascistic federal government that controls nearly every facet of our lives, working and leisure, through hundreds of thousands of regulations.
 
In every area that is regulated by the federal government a massive bureaucracy is created. Add massive new powers to control our lives and Big Brother will be hiring busybodies to enforce their laws and create new ones every couple of weeks. I know we will because I have had my eyes open.

Great keep those eyes open and let me know when it happens.
 
Nonsense. You have that backward. We have a fascistic federal government that controls nearly every facet of our lives, working and leisure, through hundreds of thousands of regulations.

Can you name some specific parts of your life where this becomes an interference? Not generalities. You. Your life. Specifically.
 
Its not just net neutrality, its classifying Internet as a public utility, using a wireless act meant for radio, which gives the FCC a lot of power. Like with TV they will be able to regulate content.

That's not what net neutrality is. That might be something they are trying to pass, but that isn't net neutrality.
 
I think you'll be fine without the liberty to throttle network traffic based on who pays more.

In fact, we'll all be better off. Net neutrality is a barrier to censorship and a barrier to the stifling of innovation.

Yes, yes, we can trust the government. Don't worry, it's all for the common good. Is that how it goes? Okay, let us just take over the internet, so we can make it fair for everyone. The common good. Oh, you built that? Sorry, it's ours now. Oh, we don't like the content so much. There are some sites that criticize the government too much. Here are a few new rules, you can't say that anymore.
 
Can you name some specific parts of your life where this becomes an interference? Not generalities. You. Your life. Specifically.

Yeah, the government wouldn't get so deep into our everyday lives as to tell us what kind of light bulbs we can produce or what toilet we can buy, right?
 
The federal government, at this point in our history is the greatest threat Americans face. Banks, or for that matter corporations cannot tax you, cannot force you to buy or use them. And they cannot put you in prison.
`
I'm not an anti-tax person. The corporations and banks legally swindle people out of more money than any collected taxes.
 
Nonsense. You have that backward. We have a fascistic federal government that controls nearly every facet of our lives, working and leisure, through hundreds of thousands of regulations.
`
You're grossly mistaken but what else is new?
 
I think you'll be fine without the liberty to throttle network traffic based on who pays more.

In fact, we'll all be better off. Net neutrality is a barrier to censorship and a barrier to the stifling of innovation.

Net neutrality is only for ISPs. THe govt will not remain neutral, and you have less power over them, than you do a company.
 
How do you believe this massive new federal bureaucracy will be paid for? Who knows what they will be. If you want an ideal take a walk through an itemized phone bill. You will find many small fees and taxes. They are chopped up so you will be less aware of the total government take. You will be paying for the minders, the busybodies and the Internet Police.
There is no massive new federal bureaucracy being created, and there is nothing that states Internet providers will have to pay a single new fee.
 
for example



My cable bill already has $30 in taxes on it.
I am against a tax on broadband. That tax proposal, however, would apply regardless of whether net neutrality is adopted or not. If you are worried about a tax on the Internet, you should be fighting proposals like the above instead of net neutrality.
 
I am against a tax on broadband. That tax proposal, however, would apply regardless of whether net neutrality is adopted or not. If you are worried about a tax on the Internet, you should be fighting proposals like the above instead of net neutrality.

Im fighting all govt involvement in the internet because we didnt give them the power to regulate communications, and because I believe they will make it worse, both in quality and cost.
 
Im fighting all govt involvement in the internet because we didnt give them the power to regulate communications, and because I believe they will make it worse, both in quality and cost.
Net neutrality is the de facto way the Internet has always been. It seems to have worked out tremendously well for us. I don't know why you are against government stopping unnatural, non-free market telecommunications monopolies from changing the way the Internet works (something they couldn't do if they competed on a free market) at the expense of competitors like Netflix and Hulu.
 
Yeah, the government wouldn't get so deep into our everyday lives as to tell us what kind of light bulbs we can produce or what toilet we can buy, right?

Inefficient lightbulbs strain the powergrid further and increase energy consumption which brings more pollution. Buying slightly more efficient lightbulbs is not a major burden upon you, particularly since you save money over the life of the bulb.

I'm not familiar with toilet regulations. What type of toilet do you want to buy but are unable to?
 
Net neutrality is only for ISPs. THe govt will not remain neutral, and you have less power over them, than you do a company.

I have more power over the government than I do Comcast, actually.
 
`
In a breath, I'd rather have the government exercise control the net than any for-profit corporation.
I'd rather no one control the net.

But that's not possible, someone needs to ensure all the infrastructure functions, or no net.

I'd prefer if we had a government agency dedicated to ensuring internet access was limited only by the hardware used.

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


In my ideal world, the internet would basically be a vast open network, unlimited by anything except hardware. Any kind of security or content limits desired would only be implemented on the connected devices and networks.

Even more ideal would be high-speed connections available in the vast majority of locations, free. But that isn't going to take place any time soon, since these large corporations are somehow an intrinsic part of the internet in the US atm. Of course they maintain the network, so that's something...
 
Inefficient lightbulbs strain the powergrid further and increase energy consumption which brings more pollution. Buying slightly more efficient lightbulbs is not a major burden upon you, particularly since you save money over the life of the bulb.

I'm not familiar with toilet regulations. What type of toilet do you want to buy but are unable to?

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.
 
The FCC imposes fees of 16.1% on interstate telecommunications services that will generate more than $8 billion in federal universal service funds in 2014. Additional FCC fees on interstate telecommunications services raise $1 billion for federal telecommunications relay services. Although Congress mandates the general nature of the federal universal service fund and telecommunications relay services, it is the FCC alone that sets the budget size of the funds and develops the fee structure to raise receipts for the funds.

Even with all of its power, the FCC does not have the money to fund all of the new programs it seeks. For example, just in the past year, the FCC announced an ambitious multi-billion program to connect schools and libraries with Wi-Fi. Other advocates seek expansion of the low-income program. But where can the FCC find funds for new social programs not required by statute?

The FCC’s network neutrality proceeding may easily provide the answer. By classifying broadband access services as “interstate telecommunications services,” those services would suddenly become required to pay FCC fees. At the current 16.1% fee structure, it would be perhaps the largest, one-time tax increase on the Internet. The FCC would have many billions of dollars of expanded revenue base to fund new programs without, according to the FCC, any need for congressional authorization.

FCC Plans Stealth Internet Tax Increase - Forbes
This opinion piece doesn't cite a specific regulation that says all such classifications require the tax in question.

I know that the tax can be applied. Will it? Can't our Republican-controlled congress pass a bill exempting internet access from our tax? Why does everyone act like the specifics are already set in stone?
Can be? Did the article stutter? It says "required". And you doubt it?
No specific regulation? What the heck do you think the the Universal Service Fund and "interstate telecommunications services" that are being spoken about come from?


The Universal Service Fund (USF) is a system of telecommunications subsidies and fees managed by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) intended to promote universal access to telecommunications services in the United States. The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The fund reported a total of $8.33 billion in disbursements in 2013,[1] divided among its four programs. The fund is supported by charging telecommunications companies a fee which is set quarterly. As of the fourth quarter of 2014, the rate is 16.1% [SUP][dated info][/SUP] of a telecom company's interstate end-user revenues.[SUP][2][/SUP]
Universal Service Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Which is required from all telecommunications providers.

The 1996 act also “mandated the creation of the universal service fund (USF) into which all telecommunications providers are required to contribute a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues”.[SUP][10][/SUP]
Universal Service Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Please explain using specifics how innovation will be stifled by the FCC upholding net neutrality. No generalities, no vague buzzwords, no more evasions and non-answers...specifics. Walk us through this.
:doh
This isn't upholding net neutrality. It's about generating revenue under the guise of Net Neutrality.

It is subjecting a service to regulation and taxation that it was not subjected to before.

Nor do I need to provide any specifics when I clearly said he was speaking to generalities of what is going to happen based of his own knowledge and experience.





Page two continues and ends with the following.

to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s
2massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the
public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.
 
Net neutrality is the de facto way the Internet has always been. It seems to have worked out tremendously well for us. I don't know why you are against government stopping unnatural, non-free market telecommunications monopolies from changing the way the Internet works (something they couldn't do if they competed on a free market) at the expense of competitors like Netflix and Hulu.

Because I trust the free market more than I do govt.
 
Back
Top Bottom