• 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!

FCC adopts Net neutrality rules to ban Internet discrimination

JumpinJack said:
It passed! I think this is a good thing. It protects consumers and businesses alike, to ensure that a business on the internet has enough internet speed so as not to discourage users from using its site, and prevents telecom companies from blackmailing them (pay us a "special fee" every year, and we'll protect you against us; otherwise, we'll slow down your speed so that you won't get any traffic). That ensures that we the consumers will get search results that are more reflective of what's out there on the internet, and not just results from the bigger businesses that have paid the "special fees."

The internet was net neutral in the beginning. Along the way the telecom companies devised this scheme to blackmail businesses, so that they were not only gouging consumers, they could gouge businesses, too.
Click to expand...

it's a good thing for this site. no way that we could have afforded preferential data treatment.
 
aseidner said:
According to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, the person responsible for for net neutrality plan voted on today, the new regulations seek to "ban blocking, ban throttling, and ban paid-prioritization fast lanes", while preventing the implementation of any new taxes. I am in agreement with these broad ideas, which essentially keep the internet the way it is now. Still, I don't like that the complete plan has not been released to the public and only a summary has been made available (Chairman Wheeler Proposes New Rules for Protecting the Open Internet | FCC.gov). I suppose all we have to go on at the moment is a hope that the FCC will not overstep the bounds it has communicated to the public :?.
Click to expand...
These things should be debated in congress and in public, not decided behind the scenes by unelected bureaucrats. Even people who like the rules should oppose the way they were arrived at and implemented.
 
Fletch said:
These things should be debated in congress and in public, not decided behind the scenes by unelected bureaucrats. Even people who like the rules should oppose the way they were arrived at and implemented.
Click to expand...

I agree. Something like this should have been discussed much more publicly than it was.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
How do you know it does ANY of this? have you read it? has ANYONE read it?
Click to expand...
... because we all have dealt with cable television packages that offer premium channel upgrade options.

No one in their right mind wants to be paying $50 to "upgrade" to a package that offers Wikipedia. Or be held-up by your ISP throttling your service until you pay a service fee.

We've also seen it in practice. The ISPs have been experimenting with data caps in several markets. Comcast and Verizon were charging Netflix a fee to "ensure" that its data streams to customers weren't being interrupted.
 
brothern said:
... because we all have dealt with cable television packages that offer premium channel upgrade options.

No one in their right mind wants to be paying $50 to "upgrade" to a package that offers Wikipedia. Or be held-up by your ISP throttling your service until you pay a service fee.

We've also seen it in practice. The ISPs have been experimenting with data caps in several markets. Comcast and Verizon were charging Netflix a fee to "ensure" that its data streams to customers weren't being interrupted.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that there will be upsides to this regulation, but are the downsides worse? I don't know. What if it turns out that this isn't a good thing? Good luck putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
 
JumpinJack said:
That reminds me of a line from the movie Paint Your Wagon. When a Mormon man rides into the rough mining town that has no women, and he has two wives, the pretty wife without the newborn agrees to be sold at auction.

Mormon husband: But Wife! You don't know what you'll get!

Wife: I may not know what I'll get. But I know what I've had.
Click to expand...
Are you implying it will get better with regulation, because I am not sure.
I still want to wait and see what all they want to change.
 
aseidner said:
I'm certainly skeptical of it. A lot of people are celebrating this ruling; I think it's too early to do so.
Click to expand...




I think people celebrating being kept secret on a thing, and that' things approval shows a sad state we are in as a nation.
 
JumpinJack said:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fcc-adopts-net-neutrality-rules-to-ban-internet-discrimination-163703235.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma

It passed! I think this is a good thing. It protects consumers and businesses alike, to ensure that a business on the internet has enough internet speed so as not to discourage users from using its site, and prevents telecom companies from blackmailing them (pay us a "special fee" every year, and we'll protect you against us; otherwise, we'll slow down your speed so that you won't get any traffic). That ensures that we the consumers will get search results that are more reflective of what's out there on the internet, and not just results from the bigger businesses that have paid the "special fees."

The internet was net neutral in the beginning. Along the way the telecom companies devised this scheme to blackmail businesses, so that they were not only gouging consumers, they could gouge businesses, too.
Click to expand...
You, are in for a giant dose of disappointment, of course, you'll blame everyone but the perps for it. So sad to see the internet die and people cheer it on.
 
Helix said:
it's a good thing for this site. no way that we could have afforded preferential data treatment.
Click to expand...

Considering this site was never in an threat this is the dumbest defense of this boondoggle to date. Here's a question, are you guys ready to be regulated by the FCC due to all the "political speech" on here? Oh I know, that CAN'T happen right?

MWAHAHAHA. Did you get to keep your doctor too? Sad day for the world, for freedom, liberty and common sense.
 
It's just amazing to me that people are ok with the FCC, the organization that thought Janet Jackson whipping a tittie out on TV was armageddon, having control of the Internet.
 
Only socialists/big government lovers and the naive/ignorant think this is a good thing.

The government has been trying for decades to try and control th Internet...it has hated the freedom that the latter enjoys.

And today, is the beginning of controlling that freedom.

And they did it like they take away every freedom - using fear and dangling money to the ignorant masses. There were LOTS of other ways to limit the big Internet providers monopoly getting too big whilst still maintaining true net neutrality...this may have been the worst one.


Except during war and HUGE natural/medical disasters, ANYTIME the government gets involved in something, it damages it and makes it more expensive. This is no exception.
 
jonny5 said:
Strawman, there is no way would you have had to.
Click to expand...

our data would absolutely have been treated as second or third tier, if even that. once faster access is available for money, those with money will buy it. we don't have the means to do that.
 
MrVicchio said:
Considering this site was never in an threat this is the dumbest defense of this boondoggle to date. Here's a question, are you guys ready to be regulated by the FCC due to all the "political speech" on here? Oh I know, that CAN'T happen right?

MWAHAHAHA. Did you get to keep your doctor too? Sad day for the world, for freedom, liberty and common sense.
Click to expand...

so, your argument is that the government is going to prevent you from bitching incessantly about Obama on this site? when is this going to happen?
 
Helix said:
our data would absolutely have been treated as second or third tier, if even that. once faster access is available for money, those with money will buy it. we don't have the means to do that.
Click to expand...

It IS second or third tier and those speeds would be fine. You would probably end up paying LESS since your need would dictate your cost. My dad who only does email pays the same as me who downloads a gigabyte of video every day. Great for me, sucks for him.
 
Helix said:
so, your argument is that the government is going to prevent you from bitching incessantly about Obama on this site? when is this going to happen?
Click to expand...

Figures when you're little weak defense is chopped you resort to personal snide commentary. I judge that to be a white flag of surrender. just remember when the FCC starts cracking down on political speech, YOU cheered it's inception on. Baa Baa like the good sheep you were, and then you will wail and wonder how it all went wrong.
 
jonny5 said:
It IS second or third tier and those speeds would be fine. You would probably end up paying LESS since your need would dictate your cost. My dad who only does email pays the same as me who downloads a gigabyte of video every day. Great for me, sucks for him.
Click to expand...

i don't agree that a non-neutral net would be exactly the same for this site long term. it was basically just a cop out plan the telecom companies cooked up to avoid having to build as much new infrastructure : use the existing infrastructure, but make even more money by giving the big guys a greater chunk of it. **** that.

it's not just this site. without net neutrality, the next cool thing might not even happen. no way twitter and Facebook could have competed with Myspace if they couldn't afford to buy preferential treatment. do you want to be limited to whatever streaming movie, video, and music sites exist right now because startups can't afford to have their data on the top tier? i don't.

piss and moan about it all you want. call your representative, and tell him or her to pass a clean bill for net neutrality. or just sit around and post angry things on the internet on a site that can't afford preferential data treatment.
 
MrVicchio said:
Figures when you're little weak defense is chopped you resort to personal snide commentary. I judge that to be a white flag of surrender. just remember when the FCC starts cracking down on political speech, YOU cheered it's inception on. Baa Baa like the good sheep you were, and then you will wail and wonder how it all went wrong.
Click to expand...

i missed your answer to my question about the timeframe in which you believe that you will be prevented from bitching incessantly about the government. a year? five years? i was hoping to narrow it down so that we can revisit this point when you're allowed to complain about the government on this site as long as the site exists.
 
longview said:
I am concerned that the medicine may be worse than the illness.
Sine we do not really know what all is in the new rules, I think we should wait and
see what the rules actually say.
Click to expand...

Sir that's ridiculous. Democrats did it, therefore I either oppose it or support it depending on who I voted for in the last election. The American way.
 
Deuce said:
Sir that's ridiculous. Democrats did it, therefore I either oppose it or support it depending on who I voted for in the last election. The American way.
Click to expand...
My fear is that Government did it!
 
The Man said:
It's just amazing to me that people are ok with the FCC, the organization that thought Janet Jackson whipping a tittie out on TV was armageddon, having control of the Internet.
Click to expand...

personally, i would have preferred NN to be legislated rather than regulated like the phone system in the 1930s. perhaps that might still happen, but i really doubt it.
 
jonny5 said:
It IS second or third tier and those speeds would be fine. You would probably end up paying LESS since your need would dictate your cost. My dad who only does email pays the same as me who downloads a gigabyte of video every day. Great for me, sucks for him.
Click to expand...

Net neutrality doesn't prevent different price structures for different download volumes. Yet again, we see the people against net neutrality often misunderstand what it is.
 
longview said:
My fear is that Government did it!
Click to expand...

Yes. Many conservatives have this idea that the government doing something is inherently bad.

Government is made up of people. It is only as flawed as the people making the decisions. Which, incidentally, isn't any different from any other entity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom