• 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!

Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

`
All of this depends on who you want to believe (confirmation bias) and unfortunately, "net neutrality" is an ideological divide with the Republican/conservatives against it because;

1 - They always oppose anything Obama is for, regardless of how good it is for the country and consumer.

2 - The political right is pro-corporation to an extent where they will support them, even if it harms their own members.

3 - "Another clue to the Republican leaders' true intentions is their citation of a thoroughly debunked "study" from the so-called Progressive Policy Institute. In the study, PPI falsely claimed that Title II could lead to as much as $15 billion in new taxes on Internet users. The recent reauthorization of the Internet Tax Freedom Act killed any such threat. (Sen. Ron Wyden called PPI's claims "baloney.") But thanks to the cable lobby, the Wall Street Journal and noted progressive Grover Norquist, this zombie lie keeps coming back to life". - source

Also see: Congress Puts to Rest the Great Internet Tax Hoax of 2014

Pax, you know I love you like a sister but you've got to realize you're looking to trade private influences you have the freedom to reject, for Government control you're obliged to accept.
 
`
While I may be wrong, I think you are over dramatizing this. All that the FCC's Tom Wheller suggested is that any new net neutrality rules will be based upon the Title II of the Communications Act. To wit;

If you want to believe that the Feds will exercise draconian control over the internet, have at it. However, past enforcement of the (47 CFR 20.15) Title II of the Communications Act, by the federal government has shown no abuse.

All I'm saying, is that there is more to this net neutrality story than what Youtubers know or will say. After all, you do realize what Tom Wheeler did before he became FCC chair yes? And who put him in there? If this was really bad for business, do you really think he'd be behind it considering the background?

And incidentally, the Right doesn't oppose *everything* Obama does. In fact, on foreign policy issues, you'll find they align more often than not. And when they don't, you'll usually see the democrats in congress siding with Republicans as well.
 
`
While I may be wrong, I think you are over dramatizing this. All that the FCC's Tom Wheller suggested is that any new net neutrality rules will be based upon the Title II of the Communications Act. To wit;



If you want to believe that the Feds will exercise draconian control over the internet, have at it. However, past enforcement of the (47 CFR 20.15) Title II of the Communications Act, by the federal government has shown no abuse.



lol, then explain the release that's posted here showing the plan it is verboten for us to read suggesting far more than this simplistic explanation.
 
This kind of Government (FCC) uber-regulation has failed Court review before and hopefully will again. But you have to admire the Left's doggedness.
It's a naked attempt to apply the "Fairness Doctrine" to internet content with the Federal Government deciding what's Fair.
And think about how often Obama uses the word "Fair" as an excuse for his extra-legal actions.
 
Pax, you know I love you like a sister but you've got to realize you're looking to trade private influences you have the freedom to reject, for Government control you're obliged to accept.
`
I look at it this way....I (or we as consumers) have absolutely no say when the Big 4 telecoms raise rates, add charges and throttle ones service. With government oversight (not control) I at least have an avenue I can go to someone, such as an elected official, who will at the very least, will listen to my complaint(s). I have no such assurances with a corporation.
 
All I'm saying, is that there is more to this net neutrality story than what Youtubers know or will say. After all, you do realize what Tom Wheeler did before he became FCC chair yes? And who put him in there? If this was really bad for business, do you really think he'd be behind it considering the background? And incidentally, the Right doesn't oppose *everything* Obama does. In fact, on foreign policy issues, you'll find they align more often than not. And when they don't, you'll usually see the democrats in congress siding with Republicans as well.
`
We agree, to disagree.
 
`
I look at it this way....I (or we as consumers) have absolutely no say when the Big 4 telecoms raise rates, add charges and throttle ones service. With government oversight (not control) I at least have an avenue I can go to someone, such as an elected official, who will at the very least, will listen to my complaint(s). I have no such assurances with a corporation.
You can change service providers but when the Government makes decisions about content, you don't even know what you've been prevented from seeing or reading.
It'd be like what TV was when it was just the 3 major networks ... only there'd be one network.
And if you say that's not what Net Neutrality will lead to, you're mistaken.
 
lol, then explain the release that's posted here showing the plan it is verboten for us to read suggesting far more than this simplistic explanation.
`
In recent memory, the Republicans have probed Benghazi, the IRS, National Science Foundation grants, federal regulators targeting businesses, Obamacare and a few I forgot. In all cases, nothing came of these probes except to waste money and time.

So, if you are referring to the newest probe as indicated on your Original Post, as being "simplistic", I daresay you are correct.
 
You can change service providers but when the Government makes decisions about content, you don't even know what you've been prevented from seeing or reading.
It'd be like what TV was when it was just the 3 major networks ... only there'd be one network.And if you say that's not what Net Neutrality will lead to, you're mistaken.
`
We have ONE broadband provider here (Time -Warner) who keeps jacking up the rates without adding a darn thing. They have NO competition. That's what net neutrality is all about: competition.
 
`
We have ONE broadband provider here (Time -Warner) who keeps jacking up the rates without adding a darn thing. They have NO competition. That's what net neutrality is all about: competition.

When the Government is doing it the objective is content control.
Was the tax exempt status law applied fairly by the IRS? (that's not an irrelevant question)
And that was a Law, not a regulation.
 
`
In recent memory, the Republicans have probed Benghazi, the IRS, National Science Foundation grants, federal regulators targeting businesses, Obamacare and a few I forgot. In all cases, nothing came of these probes except to waste money and time.

So, if you are referring to the newest probe as indicated on your Original Post, as being "simplistic", I daresay you are correct.



WTF are you on about? I want to read that plan, what does that have to do with the topic here?


Are you saying you support having a plan hidden from public until it's voted on?



You don't even understand what net neutrality is and you trust your government to take care of you?
 
`
We have ONE broadband provider here (Time -Warner) who keeps jacking up the rates without adding a darn thing. They have NO competition. That's what net neutrality is all about: competition.




Net neutrality has nothing to do with you getting more ISP's or not.
 
`
On cue...the corporate paid for politicians and shills are launching a counter-attack against net neutrality. They will do anything at this point to protect their 97% profit margin.

Ten to one Ajit finds a cushy job as a Telecom lobbyist when he leaves the FCC. He's repeating all the same groundless rhetoric as the rest of the paid-for shills.
 
Ten to one Ajit finds a cushy job as a Telecom lobbyist when he leaves the FCC. He's repeating all the same groundless rhetoric as the rest of the paid-for shills.



It's amazing how this administration uses a term "net neutrality" and people think it's really net neutrality, not a takeover of the internet by the federalis.
 
What was the point then? Please to explain

I shall elucidate. One of the common refrains regarding the FCC regulating the internet as a title II utility is that it will "stifle competition" (of course, zero detail is given how that will happen). However, if you look you'll find that this is precisely what internet providers have done: across at least nineteen states they lobbied state legislators to bar local communities from establishing their own isps. They got rid of competition for themselves. These are your champions of competition and free choice.

It's amazing how this administration uses a term "net neutrality" and people think it's really net neutrality, not a takeover of the internet by the federalis.

Rhetoric.
 
I shall elucidate. One of the common refrains regarding the FCC regulating the internet as a title II utility is that it will "stifle competition" (of course, zero detail is given how that will happen). However, if you look you'll find that this is precisely what internet providers have done: across at least nineteen states they lobbied state legislators to bar local communities from establishing their own isps. They got rid of competition for themselves. These are your champions of competition and free choice.



Rhetoric.




This isn't net neutrality bro.



Do you know what net neutrality is? please in your own words.
 
So basically, the administration is calling over-regulation and control of the internet "Net Neutrality".

You are not allowed to read the 333 page plan.


B9LAFM7CEAE-EHP.jpg



Until it's voted on.

https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC/status/563724099906568193/photo/1


[/FONT][/COLOR]
Here is President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I wish the public could see what's inside.







Look how proud that mother****er looks saddling us with more regulations and opening the door to taxation.


for those slow on the uptake:

qOf4NpQ.png
They have to pass it to know what's in it, and whatever is in it will be good, because the right people will make it fair. Cmon on Rev, you know this stuff man.
 
We're not paying under 50 :shrug:

Our bill is more akin to 60/60+ a month.

It's a ****ing monopoly. The government is going to break it up and the companies are scared that they won't be able to monopolize this industry anymore. Simple as that.

You keep smoking that pipe.
 
You avoided my question.

Do you know what net neutrality is? please in your own words.

Quid pro quo: you avoided my answer. I wrote out a perfectly coherent response and you hand-waved it away. If you were me would you burn a single additional calorie writing out an intelligent response to you?
 
Quid pro quo: you avoided my answer. I wrote out a perfectly coherent response and you hand-waved it away. If you were me would you burn a single additional calorie writing out an intelligent response to you?




Noted. You have no clue what net neutrality actually is. Thanks for the conversation my friend.
 
Noted. You have no clue what net neutrality actually is. Thanks for the conversation my friend.

Noted: you have zero interest in understanding the actual criticism against net neutrality as you're more interested in low-grade rhetoric over detail, and you have zero interest in what internet providers themselves are doing and how it contributes to the discussion. You also apparently have zero interest in the history of the FCC and internet neutrality. You talk like a paid shill.
 
Back
Top Bottom