• 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!

Live feed to the FCC vote on Net Neutrality.

gdgyva said:
not one person who is for the passing of these new regulations, can tell us what exactly was in them

doesnt that bother any of you?

does your trust of government run so deep that you just accept secret regulations that never get to be debated by the public

rules that the congress wasnt even allowed to see?

for an administration that promised everything out in the open, this reeks

something stinks, and it isnt the kimchee in my neighbors yard
Click to expand...
As an issue unto itself, regardless the specific subject matter, yes, that does bother me. Greatly.
 
Verax said:
Liberals and thus freedom won today. Much like clean air and clean water, we can thank liberals for a free internet saved from the clutches of tyrannical corporate profits and monopoly.
Click to expand...

Blind allegiance and hyperbole, eh ?

Thats nothing to be thankful for or proud of.
 
Cardinal said:
So what do you think will be the concrete negative impact of this? And I don't mean vague bumper sticker answers like "less freedom" or "kittens will have teh sadz." Something tangible.
Click to expand...

AintSoJoe.jpg
 
Fenton said:
Blind allegiance and hyperbole, eh ?

Thats nothing to be thankful for or proud of.
Click to expand...

50 years ago or so, liberals were high-fiving each other when they implemented tax changes that encouraged employers to take over providing health insurance in the market

They think they have all the answers, but don’t actually have the capacity to foresee problems they create.
 
Fenton said:
Blind allegiance and hyperbole, eh ?

Thats nothing to be thankful for or proud of.
Click to expand...

I've read all about Net Neutrality and I support the rationale behind it 100%. I've noticed many right-wingers in this thread haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about and obviously got their beliefs from the man on the radio, or the tv, or some hackish right-wing puke repository of lies on the net.
 
Verax said:
I've read all about Net Neutrality and I support the rationale behind it 100%. I've noticed many right-wingers in this thread haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about and obviously got their beliefs from the man on the radio, or the tv, or some hackish right-wing puke repository of lies on the net.
Click to expand...
OK, since you know all about it, what are the potential downsides and unforeseen consequences?
 
Fletch said:
OK, since you know all about it, what are the potential downsides and unforeseen consequences?
Click to expand...

It could be nice to have fast lanes and have people who are willing to pay more to create ultra fast, low latency networks with higher reliability. This could be great, but the potential downsides are terrible. Allowing data to be discriminated against would hand the keys over to the ISPs, they would essentially become a bridge troll that demands whatever the hell they want or else little or no access to the bridge. The big guys would have an inherent advantage over smaller outfits. They could pay for priority access to their websites while startups or small companies with tight budgets are basically blacklisted. This encourages monopoly and discourages competition.
 
Verax said:
I've read all about Net Neutrality and I support the rationale behind it 100%. I've noticed many right-wingers in this thread haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about and obviously got their beliefs from the man on the radio, or the tv, or some hackish right-wing puke repository of lies on the net.
Click to expand...

so you know what the fcc wrote then

please enlighten the rest of us

we arent privy to such secret documentation
 
Fletch said:
OK, since you know all about it, what are the potential downsides and unforeseen consequences?
Click to expand...

Well the Google Video vs Youtube battle is a perfect example.

Google Video was of course created by a company with tons of money and Youtube was created by three former PayPal employees.

In a situation where Google could use their clout and money, they could of paid for ultra fast lanes to stream videos. Youtube on the other hand couldn't cough up that kind of the money when they first hit the market.

In a situation where there were no fast lanes/slow lanes, people flooded to Youtube because it's features were superior and Google eventually scrapped Google Video and just bought Youtube.

That's a situation where a non-neutral internet could be used to cut off competition. No matter how much better Youtube is, if it takes 60% longer to download than Google Video, people would of went with the "faster" player.
 
Verax said:
It could be nice to have fast lanes and have people who are willing to pay more to create ultra fast, low latency networks with higher reliability. This could be great, but the potential downsides are terrible. Allowing data to be discriminated against would hand the keys over to the ISPs, they would essentially become a bridge troll that demands whatever the hell they want or else little or no access to the bridge. The big guys would have an inherent advantage over smaller outfits. They could pay for priority access to their websites while startups or small companies with tight budgets are basically blacklisted. This encourages monopoly and discourages competition.
Click to expand...

but utilities are not monopolies?......and the goverment is not a monopoly..?

You just whiffed on the macro point..and are buying off on the facade and minutia ...exactly what they wanted...they saved you fromt he big bad Comcast...right?


anyone seeing a pattern with Obama yet? ( God help us all )
 
Last edited:
gdgyva said:
so you know what the fcc wrote then

please enlighten the rest of us

we arent privy to such secret documentation
Click to expand...

Maybe he's friends with Jessica Rosenworcel and Mignon Clyburn. My Congressman said Congress hasn't even been granted access to the details beyond the press release. Verax probably knows people in high places.
 
Moon said:
You'd think that someone who regularly posts on a political message board would understand the difference between a constitutional amendment and a federal regulation created by a body that is not directly responsible to the will of the people.
Click to expand...

So amendments are not Federal regulations? They certainly are and they protect our rights from abuse.
 
ARealConservative said:
the 1st amendment is a limitation on government control. This is an increase in government control. your analogy couldn't be more absurd.
Click to expand...

Who enforces freedom of speech? Without "government control" we would have no rights at all.
 
iguanaman said:
Who enforces freedom of speech? Without "government control" we would have no rights at all.
Click to expand...

weak sauce.

you tried to use the 1st amendment as an example of the good that happens increasing government power, yet that was specifically designed to limit government power.
 
ARealConservative said:
weak sauce.

you tried to use the 1st amendment as an example of the good that happens increasing government power, yet that was specifically designed to limit government power.
Click to expand...

You only make that distinction because you don't understand that there are other powers besides Govt. that can restrict freedom and do harm to our society. Sad really. Being so myopic is a disease.
 
akrunner88 said:
Time will tell, however the goal here was to prevent content providers from creating unequal access to content producers, which was likely to happen. Sites like Netflix, Facebook, etc will have just as much access to the internet as everyone else.

If Comcast and other providers had their way, they would charge more for certain people to distribute their content than others. This would effectively capitalize the Internet instead of creating a free and equal internet.

Both sides of the argument have their ups and downs, but I'm siding with this decision. Internet should not be a right accessible to those with the most money. I don't trust content providers, Comcast has proven time and time again how willing they are to **** with their customers just because they can. I don't trust the FCC either. So it comes down to the lesser of evils here.
Click to expand...



I trust the government in this area far less than the government.

Check the freedom of the communication arteries in other State Controlled Media Environments.

This is pure and simple the government seizure of today's equivalent of the free press.

This is dark day for freedom and just one more step by Obama to eliminate individual rights.
 
Lutherf said:
The internet certainly isn't going to end but you can reasonably expect sites like this one to become highly regulated if they collect any revenue from web traffic or subscriptions.
Click to expand...

I look at it this way, once they can get in there and regulate a part of it, why not regulate ALL of it and not just access, content too. It's a whole big new sandbox of regulation, jobs for lawyers and senate/house staffers for decades to come. All at the detriment of the American's who use it of course.
 
Verax said:
I've read all about Net Neutrality and I support the rationale behind it 100%. I've noticed many right-wingers in this thread haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about and obviously got their beliefs from the man on the radio, or the tv, or some hackish right-wing puke repository of lies on the net.
Click to expand...

You have ?

Whats in the Regulations ? Specifically.

And I wouldnt be talking down to anyone let alone ' Right Wingers " if I were you.

We're not the ones who are naive enough to belive in the Bull **** narratives that the Obama administration used to suck you people into believing that they have YOUR or anyone elses best interest in mind.

That they're going to right some injustice that really only exist in the naive minds of their supporters.

So keep celebrating being the Obamq administrations useful idiots and being really really gullible.
 
iguanaman said:
You only make that distinction because you don't understand that there are other powers besides Govt. that can restrict freedom and do harm to our society. Sad really. Being so myopic is a disease.
Click to expand...


LOL !!

Oh the irony.
 
iguanaman said:
Who enforces freedom of speech? Without "government control" we would have no rights at all.
Click to expand...

First off, the government doesn't enforce free speech. It provides a mechanism by which individuals and entities who believe that their right to free speech has been violated can obtain remedy for that violation if, indeed, such a violation occurred.

Second, government control does not create or protect any rights. In fact the very nature of government control is that restricts the rights of one entity in favor of the rights of another. The classic example of this is the enforcement of laws. When the government exercises control in the form of law enforcement people go to prison.
 
Fenton said:
You have ?

Whats in the Regulations ? Specifically.

And I wouldnt be talking down to anyone let alone ' Right Wingers " if I were you.

We're not the ones who are naive enough to belive in the Bull **** narratives that the Obama administration used to suck you people into believing that they have YOUR or anyone elses best interest in mind.

That they're going to right some injustice that really only exist in the naive minds of their supporters.

So keep celebrating being the Obamq administrations useful idiots and being really really gullible.
Click to expand...

I linked to the FCC's proposal a few pages back, that is what they are.... "proposing" to do. A quote from Tom Wheeler sums it up quite nicely.

This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech.
Click to expand...

Sorry but this has absolutely nothing to do with the Obama administration. They simply did the right thing that everyone (except the ISPs) wanted.
 
Verax said:
I linked to the FCC's proposal a few pages back, that is what they are.... "proposing" to do. A quote from Tom Wheeler sums it up quite nicely.



Sorry but this has absolutely nothing to do with the Obama administration. They simply did the right thing that everyone (except the ISPs) wanted.
Click to expand...

Huh ? The vote was along party lines.
It had everything to do with Obama, its his MO.
 
Verax said:
Liberals and thus freedom won today. Much like clean air and clean water, we can thank liberals for a free internet saved from the clutches of tyrannical corporate profits and monopoly.
Click to expand...

so much misinformation in so few words... it's actually impressive.... well done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom