• 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.

You want Congress involved because they know so much about the internet? They are lucky if they can tie their shoes in the morning. This is a matter for the FCC not the lobbyist tainted Congress.

not necessarily

but do i want someone other than appointed government officials to see this, and to make sure we arent getting screwed.......you bet

this is what some people call the 4th branch now.....

officials in government with no oversight changing rules, and changing laws.....affecting us all

i dont believe things were setup to be done this way

we have a congress and a president for the changing of laws.....

most of the time, that system works
 
A more productive line of thinking would involve questions such as "In what ways has title ii utilities led to less freedom and lower quality service in the past?" Anything else is hysteria, imho.
This presumes the government always defaults to the correct course of action, and that considerations are always honest and without lobbyist or other outside agendized influence, and that "errors" are rare.
 
This presumes the government always defaults to the correct course of action, and that considerations are always honest and without lobbyist or other outside agendized influence, and that "errors" are rare.

No, it doesn't presume the government always defaults to the correct course of action. But when a government does take an action it's prudent to look to precedents of similar actions and whether or not those actions have been shown to cause problems in the past. It's a completely reasonable approach. In all fairness, it's also completely reasonable to ask which, if any, lobbyists were involved in the FCC decision. Were they?
 
No, it doesn't presume the government always defaults to the correct course of action. But when a government does take an action it's prudent to look to precedents of similar actions and whether or not those actions have been shown to cause problems in the past. It's a completely reasonable approach. In all fairness, it's also completely reasonable to ask which, if any, lobbyists were involved in the FCC decision. Were they?
You will disagree, because as you alluded to previously, that's just what we do here at DP, but... by not directly answering the question regarding why it cannot be open and above board, and especially asking what might be wrong as if you think someone kept in the dark would even be able to answer that, you are actually arguing in favor of my point that it should be open and above board. There's no legitimate reason for it not to be, and blindly trusting the government to do right isn't a good counterargument. In fact, it comes off as either naive, or being argumentative simply for the sake of being argumentative.
 
its the same thing to Obama and the libs... the raping of our freedoms for their control...

are you just spouting random catch phrases at this point?
 
are you just spouting random catch phrases at this point?

No but appears you are in your blind support Hussein Obama and the libs destruction of our freedoms

again .. what part of the internet is not working today for you and how is the govement control going to help you?

list it..
 
No, it doesn't presume the government always defaults to the correct course of action. But when a government does take an action it's prudent to look to precedents of similar actions and whether or not those actions have been shown to cause problems in the past. It's a completely reasonable approach. In all fairness, it's also completely reasonable to ask which, if any, lobbyists were involved in the FCC decision. Were they?

why did Soros pour 200 million into this ? was Soros behind OWS?

do you think Soros cares about "speed of the internet" or "control"
 
No but appears you are in your blind support Hussein Obama and the libs destruction of our freedoms

again .. what part of the internet is not working today for you and how is the govement control going to help you?

list it..

I think I may feed your quotes into a website so I can get sarah palinisms.
 
I think I may feed your quotes into a website so I can get sarah palinisms.

iwhy not glue them to the Obama unicorn?

why did Soros put 200 million behind funding this "Net Non Nuetral" movement?

what part of the net is not working for you without Obama holding your hand?
 
why did Soros pour 200 million into this?

I neither know nor care about who this guy is and what he does.

what part of the internet dont you like that you feel govement will fix?

I don't suspect that title 2 regulations will fix anything, but instead impose rules to keep the internet the way it is supposed to be which is nondiscriminatory when it comes to consumer traffic.

beyond that, there is no use in speculating because the exact regulations have yet to be announced.
 
I neither know nor care about who this guy is and what he does.



I don't suspect that title 2 regulations will fix anything, but instead impose rules to keep the internet the way it is supposed to be which is nondiscriminatory when it comes to consumer traffic.

beyond that, there is no use in speculating because the exact regulations have yet to be announced.


well then your ignorant on the subject and just a partisan if you dont know who Soros is and the real agenda at play...

Youre posts are moot to me
 
well then your ignorant on the subject and just a partisan if you dont know who Soros is and the real agenda at play...

Youre posts are moot to me

So instead of addressing my point, this is your response?
 
I don't suspect that title 2 regulations will fix anything, but instead impose rules to keep the internet the way it is supposed to be which is nondiscriminatory when it comes to consumer traffic.
How often does the federal government pass a small piece of legislation then back off and leave it alone?


beyond that, there is no use in speculating because the exact regulations have yet to be announced.
If it's so innocuous, why the need or desire for secrecy? Why not lay it out and say, "Here's what we're going to vote on."?
 
why did Soros pour 200 million into this?

what part of the internet dont you like that you feel govement will fix?

That answer is obvious. Soros did no such thing.
As for the 2nd question. I don't want the internet ruined by greedy ISP's like you do. Why do you always support foxes guarding henhouses? It is stupid.
 
That answer is obvious. Soros did no such thing.
As for the 2nd question. I don't want the internet ruined by greedy ISP's like you do. Why do you always support foxes guarding henhouses? It is stupid.
Agreed, having the fox guard the henhouse isn't a good idea, but I'm not sure I want Foghorn Leghorn guarding the henhouse, either.

Quite the conundrum.
 
How often does the federal government pass a small piece of legislation then back off and leave it alone?

I don't have those statistics, but theres plenty of legislation left alone that should probably go away like agencies with conflicting or redundant agendas, so it is certain to happen.

If it's so innocuous, why the need or desire for secrecy? Why not lay it out and say, "Here's what we're going to vote on."?

This has been their practice since the 70s according to my understanding and this is the same process which allowed "open devices" on cell phone networks, which lead to things like the android and iphone, showing this process has also lead to positive results and therefore making the automatic assumption of malfeasance unwarranted on your part.
 
This has been their practice since the 70s according to my understanding and this is the same process which allowed "open devices" on cell phone networks, which lead to things like the android and iphone, showing this process has also lead to positive results and therefore making the automatic assumption of malfeasance unwarranted on your part.
If so, then all the more reason to be open and up front, isn't it?

I am seriously not getting the defense of secrecy. Unnecessary secrecy, to hear the defenders tell it.
 
If so, then all the more reason to be open and up front, isn't it?

I am seriously not getting the defense of secrecy. Unnecessary secrecy, to hear the defenders tell it.

I am on the fence about whether its good or necessary, I just don't think its automatically bad or a black mark on the agency as you seem to. Some damn good rules have come out of that process such as disallowing AT&T to only allow rented phones on their network.
 
How is going around the court with the FCC constitutional? Can someone explain to me how doing the same thing that was just ruled unconstitutional is in fact constitutional?
 
A more productive line of thinking would involve questions such as "In what ways has title ii utilities led to less freedom and lower quality service in the past?" Anything else is hysteria, imho.

How exactly does the government pass regulations and not decrease freedom? Can you perhaps explain this impossibility to me?
 
I am on the fence about whether its good or necessary, I just don't think its automatically bad or a black mark on the agency as you seem to. Some damn good rules have come out of that process such as disallowing AT&T to only allow rented phones on their network.

I stated in an earlier post that I am unsure if it is good or bad, as well, but your response doesn't really address why secrecy is necessary. Even if everything is above board and good, openness in government should be the default, with secrecy specifically needing to be justified, shouldn't it?

I do not believe that long standing policies of secrecy... i.e.: "Well, that's how we've done it for so long."... excuses the practice.
 
It's not "total secrecy," it's a utility. We have utilities...they're not new.

And in case you haven't been paying attention, extremes are the raison d'être of these threads.

Isn't treating it like a utility basically taking it over?
 
Back
Top Bottom