• 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

Anthony60

Anthony60

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
8,315
Location
Northern New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No fast or slow lanes for Internet? New rules proposed

No fast or slow lanes for Internet? New rules proposed

WASHINGTON (AP) — Declaring the Internet critical for the nation, a top U.S. regulator on Wednesday proposed an unprecedented expansion of federal power to ensure providers don't block or slow web traffic for America's countless users.


Oh, boy. Every American should be wary about that phrase, "unprecedented expansion of federal power". That usually means you just lost a little (or big) piece of liberty that was formerly protected by the Constitution.
 
This issue sucks because the solution that works best for the people is not going to be the solution that is going to work for the government or the corporations. No matter how this plays out, we lose.
 
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 wouldn't have been an issue if other companies were allowed to lease existing lines or not prevented to run their own. We have local monopolies and they need to be treated as such. The ISPs are there own worst enemy here.
 
tacomancer said:
This wouldn't have been an issue if other companies were allowed to lease existing lines or not prevented to run their own. We have local monopolies and they need to be treated as such. The ISPs are there own worst enemy here.
Click to expand...
The Gov is the enemy here.

Fast lanes have to exist for some data.
What we will see is exceptions being made while we are all taxed for our internet as a utility.
Hopefully those in power change the law of what the FCC can do with the internet.
 
Excon said:
The Gov is the enemy here.

Fast lanes have to exist for some data.
What we will see is exceptions being made while we are all taxed for our internet as a utility.
Hopefully those in power change the law of what the FCC can do with the internet.
Click to expand...

If we had real competition in the market, then consumers would have options beyond being screwed or no high speed internet. That is the current situation that exists for most users and that is an unreasonable choice.
 
tacomancer said:
This wouldn't have been an issue if other companies were allowed to lease existing lines or not prevented to run their own. We have local monopolies and they need to be treated as such. The ISPs are there own worst enemy here.
Click to expand...

That is because they can only hang so many wires on the telephone polls before they snap. That will change with fiber giving people the ability to have multiple providers over the same line without having to do the licensing with the monopoly holder that happens with things like land line telephone service.
 
Declan said:
That is because they can only hang so many wires on the telephone polls before they snap. That will change with fiber giving people the ability to have multiple providers over the same line without having to do the licensing with the monopoly holder that happens with things like land line telephone service.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of room in the ground for a ditch witch. that's how our cabling is here, almost all in the ground.

but regardless, we are past that point now. The market is what it is, and because it is this way, it needs to be treated as a utility.
 
tacomancer said:
There is plenty of room in the ground for a ditch witch. that's how our cabling is here, almost all in the ground.

but regardless, we are past that point now. The market is what it is, and because it is this way, it needs to be treated as a utility.
Click to expand...

Ours is run overhead on the same poles that carry the electric and telephone lines, though the new fiber network is being put in the ground.
 
If the preservation of net neutrality can be taken at face value then this is of course excellent news for everyone (except for isps, of course, but **** them).
 
tacomancer said:
The market is what it is, and because it is this way, it needs to be treated as a utility.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't.
Gov regulation will stifle it.
 
Excon said:
No it doesn't.
Gov regulation will stifle it.
Click to expand...

The isps were going to stifle it unless net neutrality was made official. That's why Comcast (among others) sued to have nn removed.
 
Excon said:
No it doesn't.
Gov regulation will stifle it.
Click to expand...

its already been stifled by lack of competition in the local markets. See how disruptive google fiber is? That sort of better service is normal in other countries that have more sane regulations and laws. Those countries tend to have more room for competition where we largely don't. this is how the ISPs shot themselves in the foot. They are killing their golden goose.
 
Excon said:
The Gov is the enemy here.

Fast lanes have to exist for some data.
What we will see is exceptions being made while we are all taxed for our internet as a utility.
Hopefully those in power change the law of what the FCC can do with the internet.
Click to expand...

The internet IS a utility.
 
I really despise executive agencies passing law.
 
tacomancer said:
If we had real competition in the market, then consumers would have options beyond being screwed or no high speed internet. That is the current situation that exists for most users and that is an unreasonable choice.
Click to expand...

This is what happens when government subsidizes an industry and protects it from competition.
 
Que the die-hard corporatists to criticize the decision without researching how the issue actually affects them.
 
tacomancer said:
If we had real competition in the market, then consumers would have options beyond being screwed or no high speed internet. That is the current situation that exists for most users and that is an unreasonable choice.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to assert that we now have legitimate competition for other public utilliies?
 
Henrin said:
This is what happens when government subsidizes an industry and protects it from competition.
Click to expand...

The subsidies were necessary to keep our infrastructure building out fast enough to keep pace with other countries. That cat was necessary at the time and it being out of the bag is the way it is. I would be perfectly fine if we passed a different law stating that states and local governments cannot give exclusion rights to ISP cabling and any cabling that was subsidized needs to be leased out at cost +5% to competitors and services (such as cable repair and other infrastructure) has to have exactly the same SLA levels as the main ISP.

This could cause two things
1. new nonsubsidized cabling would be built ASAP
2. Other companies can enter into the forey long enough to build up capital to compete.

The real end result would be a surge in fiber optics lines at the last mile and lowered prices in about five to ten years.

In this situation, forcing the market to be the market would be the better choice I think, but title 2 is the less ballsy solution and governments can be cowards.
 
Last edited:
Adamaris said:
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...
Click to expand...

Well, I would go to a different provider then. They all have said that they won't do that, so I don't see a reason for this government action to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
 
Anthony60 said:
Well, I would go to a different provider then. They all have said that they won't do that, so I don't see a reason for this government action to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

you are lucky in that you have a choice in a populated area like new jersey, much of the country doesn't have the luxury and they should not be relegated to fourth world (because many third world countries do internet better than this one) infrastructure.
 
tacomancer said:
??

internet isnt power or water
Click to expand...

True, but if it was treated as power or water then a single provider could be granted exclusive access to a given area. My point is that making something into a utility does not encourage competition. My water company is now permitted to charge a monthly minimum, regardless of my actual usage, which makes no sense at all - that requires lower usage customers to subsidize higher usage customers.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
True, but if it was treated as power or water then a single provider could be granted exclusive access to a given area. My point is that making something into a utility does not encourage competition. My water company is now permitted to charge a monthly minimum, regardless of my actual usage, which makes no sense at all - that requires lower usage customers to subsidize higher usage customers.
Click to expand...

I agree, title 2 is better than a tiered internet, but this is what I would like to see instead.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ternet-new-rules-proposed.html#post1064278086

As for the monthly minimum for water, there is a high static costs for a treatment facility that stay the same even if the amount of water they treat is below their optimal capacity. Outflow tends to not be measured, just inflow, so its just averaged. For example, if I use draino, it costs more to treat than using the toilet for its typical use, but theres no way to measure that on an individual household level without new meters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom