• 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

Cardinal said:
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.
Click to expand...

is you mad or nah?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
is you mad or nah?
Click to expand...

Any time it crosses my mind that maybe you've smartened up since you've joined this forum, along you come and prove me wrong with your behavior in this thread. Great job.

Bro.
 
Cardinal said:
Any time it crosses my mind that maybe you've smartened up since you've joined this forum, along you come and prove me wrong with your behavior in this thread. Great job.

Bro.
Click to expand...



I know all about net neutrality, understand packet prioritization, and it's functions in relation to peers, sockets, routing, pipelines, tiers, et al. I am for net neutrality wich is simply every packet is equal if you want to simplify it. ,

That's it, there it is, end of story, net neutrality.


What ever it is you are speaking of is NOT "net neutrality".


Would you like to know why the biggest rally case for net neutrality the netflix/comcast spat also had nothing to do with net neutrality. At the end of the discussion we could then review the whole "smartened" vs "not smartened" in our relationship.



Now if you want to discuss the decentralization of the government mini monopolies that is the cable companies, I'm with you, I'm all for ending government inteference in the market, but then again, if everyone had to lay "the last mile"., our telephone poles will start to resemble the Favelas of Brazil.

Do we want that?
 
bubbabgone said:
a) When the Government is doing it the objective is content control.
b) 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.
Click to expand...
`
a) You'll have to prove that the government wants "content control." I never heard such a thing as that.

b) Please explain why that is relevant and why anyone should care?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I know all about net neutrality, understand packet prioritization, and it's functions in relation to peers, sockets, routing, pipelines, tiers, et al. I am for net neutrality wich is simply every packet is equal if you want to simplify it. ,

That's it, there it is, end of story, net neutrality.


What ever it is you are speaking of is NOT "net neutrality".


Would you like to know why the biggest rally case for net neutrality the netflix/comcast spat also had nothing to do with net neutrality. At the end of the discussion we could then review the whole "smartened" vs "not smartened" in our relationship.



Now if you want to discuss the decentralization of the government mini monopolies that is the cable companies, I'm with you, I'm all for ending government inteference in the market, but then again, if everyone had to lay "the last mile"., our telephone poles will start to resemble the Favelas of Brazil.

Do we want that?
Click to expand...

I've been to the favelas. That'll never happen here in at least a century.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I'm not sure you know what's going on here.
Click to expand...

Of course you do. Government, in its endless pursuit of power and control wants to control how the internet is used. This is the first step.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
a) WTF are you on about? I want to read that plan, what does that have to do with the topic here?
b) Are you saying you support having a plan hidden from public until it's voted on?
c) You don't even understand what net neutrality is and you trust your government to take care of you?
Click to expand...
`
a) The topic of this thread; "Thread: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan".

b) What plan? Whose plan? There is no plan. This policy statement by the FCC is only the start, to wit;

This fight is far from over, however. Reclassification is essential, but let’s keep our eyes on the prize: According to Chariman Wheeler, the new rules will be “the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission.” - source
Click to expand...


c) ...says the blind man......
 
Paxaeon said:
`
a) The topic of this thread; "Thread: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan".
Click to expand...

so there should never be questioning of this administration, any questioning is akin to a benghazi investigation.

b) What plan? Whose plan? There is no plan. This policy statement by the FCC is only the start, to wit;
Click to expand...

The one the d00d is holding in his hand.


c) ...says the blind man......
Click to expand...

yes, they pay lipservice to net neutrality while taking over the internet. lol

at least you found something at least remotely related to net neutrality even if by no concious effort of your own. ;)
 
Paxaeon said:
`
a) You'll have to prove that the government wants "content control." I never heard such a thing as that.

b) Please explain why that is relevant and why anyone should care?
Click to expand...

a) because they want to apply the Fairness Doctrine to internet content and they will decide what's "honest, equitable, & balanced".
b) the IRS adventure is an example of how the Federal Government can use a Law discriminately through their own extra-legal criteria. Doing it by regulation is even more insidious.

Pax, if this gets implemented you should be very concerned.
If not now, then when the next POTUS comes along.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I know all about net neutrality, understand packet prioritization, and it's functions in relation to peers, sockets, routing, pipelines, tiers, et al. I am for net neutrality wich is simply every packet is equal if you want to simplify it. ,

That's it, there it is, end of story, net neutrality.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we actually know all that. In fact, the reason we want net neutrality is because we know what it is. From everything I can tell the people who oppose the FCC regulating the internet as a title II utility...

a)don't know what net neutrality is (this is the simplest and most common issue)
b)don't know that net neutrality is something we've had since essentially the rise of the internet and think net neutrality is new
c)cannot or will not explain in detail, and beyond emotional rhetoric, how the new regulation will stifle creativity/competition/etc. (this one applies to you)

These three render debate with those people pretty much impossible.


What ever it is you are speaking of is NOT "net neutrality".
Click to expand...

I was addressing the idea that the FCC will stifle competition when there are already clear cut examples of isps doing precisely that. You avoid this as if ignoring it will make the argument go away, even though "stifling competition" is one of the primary criticisms of the FCC's impending action.

Would you like to know why the biggest rally case for net neutrality the netflix/comcast spat also had nothing to do with net neutrality. At the end of the discussion we could then review the whole "smartened" vs "not smartened" in our relationship.
Click to expand...

I know that Comcast fought hard and eventually successfully to remove the FCC's regulation and the ability to set NN in stone. I know that isps have lobbied successfully in (at least) twenty states to ban local communities from setting up their own isps. Internet providers have given every indication they don't have users' interests at heart, I don't trust them and neither should you.

ReverendHellh0und said:
Now if you want to discuss the decentralization of the government mini monopolies that is the cable companies, I'm with you, I'm all for ending government inteference in the market, but then again, if everyone had to lay "the last mile"., our telephone poles will start to resemble the Favelas of Brazil.

Do we want that?
Click to expand...

So you want corporate monopolies then?
 
Paxaeon said:
`
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
Click to expand...
The above is you engaging in partisan politics and not knowing what you are talking about.
This isn't good for the nation.

And what you cite as debunking does no such thing. I seriously doubt you even read what you provided. :doh

From your cite.
WASHINGTON -- On Saturday, Congress passed the $1.1 trillion spending package, which includes a provision to extend a moratorium on local and state taxes for Internet sales and services. The Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), reauthorized through October 2015, bans states from imposing taxes on Internet access no matter how the FCC classifies it.

This extension erases any concern that reclassifying Internet-access services under Title II of the Communications Act could lead to a new tax burden on consumers.​

The above claim is nonsense as it is irrelevant to what has been provided in these multiple threads.


Do you understand the difference between local State and Federal?

There will be a Federal "required" tax/fee which is currently set at 16.1%.
 
Excon said:
The above is you engaging in partisan politics and not knowing what you are talking about.
This isn't good for the nation.

And what you cite as debunking does no such thing. I seriously doubt you even read what you provided. :doh

From your cite.
WASHINGTON -- On Saturday, Congress passed the $1.1 trillion spending package, which includes a provision to extend a moratorium on local and state taxes for Internet sales and services. The Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), reauthorized through October 2015, bans states from imposing taxes on Internet access no matter how the FCC classifies it.

This extension erases any concern that reclassifying Internet-access services under Title II of the Communications Act could lead to a new tax burden on consumers.​

The above claim is nonsense as it is irrelevant to what has been provided in these multiple threads.


Do you understand the difference between local State and Federal?

There will be a Federal "required" tax/fee which is currently set at 16.1%.
Click to expand...
She reads huffpo and other leftwing extreme sources. I've read them, but to see more of the story. Soemthing tells me Pax doesn't ever expand her news and information sources.
 
Excon said:
The above is you engaging in partisan politics and not knowing what you are talking about. This isn't good for the nation. And what you cite as debunking does no such thing. I seriously doubt you even read what you provided. :doh
From your cite.WASHINGTON -- On Saturday, Congress passed the $1.1 trillion spending package, which includes a provision to extend a moratorium on local and state taxes for Internet sales and services. The Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), reauthorized through October 2015, bans states from imposing taxes on Internet access no matter how the FCC classifies it.This extension erases any concern that reclassifying Internet-access services under Title II of the Communications Act could lead to a new tax burden on consumers.The above claim is nonsense as it is irrelevant to what has been provided in these multiple threads.Do you understand the difference between local State and Federal?
There will be a Federal "required" tax/fee which is currently set at 16.1%.
Click to expand...
`
I have no idea what you are talking about....but have a good day.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
I have no idea what you are talking about....but have a good day.
Click to expand...
:naughty
No, you had no idea what you are talking about, as shown. You were wrong.
 
Excon said:
Do you understand the difference between local State and Federal?

There will be a Federal "required" tax/fee which is currently set at 16.1%.
Click to expand...

There might be such a tax at 16.1%, or it might be set at 0.0% or 145%.
 
JasperL said:
There might be such a tax at 16.1%, or it might be set at 0.0% or 145%.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
The fee/tax is currently set at 16.1.
That means that is what currently would be charged.
 
Excon said:
Wrong.
The fee/tax is currently set at 16.1.
That means that is what currently would be charged.
Click to expand...

If you can find where the FCC currently levies a tax of 16.1%, you're a better researcher than I am. This article summarizes tax on wireless services and the total is about 17%, with 12% state and local charges. And that varies from state to state, city to city. It also includes charges unique to phones, such as 911 charges. Whatever the case, each government, Feds, FCC, state and local, would vote to extend those taxes to internet and what they decide could be 0% or 40% or any value imaginable.

Bottom line is this is the kind of dishonesty in evaluating the proposal I expect from the right wing, which is why I have to look elsewhere.
 
JasperL said:
If you can find where the FCC currently levies a tax of 16.1%, you're a better researcher than I am. This article summarizes tax on wireless services and the total is about 17%, with 12% state and local charges. And that varies from state to state, city to city. It also includes charges unique to phones, such as 911 charges. Whatever the case, each government, Feds, FCC, state and local, would vote to extend those taxes to internet and what they decide could be 0% or 40% or any value imaginable.

Bottom line is this is the kind of dishonesty in evaluating the proposal I expect from the right wing, which is why I have to look elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Already provided it.
Read the multiple threads on this subject to find it.
 
Excon said:
Already provided it.
Read the multiple threads on this subject to find it.
Click to expand...

No you didn't - you quoted opinion writers who didn't link to source documents. But if you look at my link, you'll see the calculation and the actual USF charge, which is on phone services, phone calls, is 5.8%. Think what you want, but the 16.1% number is a red herring - irrelevant to the subject of net neutrality and whether the current proposal makes sense or not.
 
JasperL said:
No you didn't - you quoted opinion writers who didn't link to source documents. But if you look at my link, you'll see the calculation and the actual USF charge, which is on phone services, phone calls, is 5.8%. Think what you want, but the 16.1% number is a red herring - irrelevant to the subject of net neutrality and whether the current proposal makes sense or not.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
Again.

I already provided it.
Read the multiple threads on this subject to find it.​
 
Excon said:
Wrong.
Again.

I already provided it.
Read the multiple threads on this subject to find it.​
Click to expand...

Okee dokee. This has been fun.

BTW, LMAO at the "read multiple threads to find some link I can't bother to spend 5 seconds to provide." :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom