• 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:
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...

Oh Yea. The internet will be protected forever...So now, the ISPs will no longer be monopolies and there will be no more "slow internet" speed complaints to Comcast right?? You put a lot of trust in this bill. How is Obamacare working out?
 
ModerateGOP said:
Oh Yea. The internet will be protected forever...So now, the ISPs will no longer be monopolies and there will be no more "slow internet" speed complaints to Comcast right?? You put a lot of trust in this bill. How is Obamacare working out?
Click to expand...

I like my ISP. Can I keep it? Never mind, I'll ask Obama. He's always honest about these things.
 
Helix said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not exactly right. This site would not be affected either way. This site is mainly a text based site. It doesn't use that much bandwidth in the overall "internet of things". Netflix, Facebook, and Youtube are just about the only sites it affects now. Those are heavy content sites with both uploads and downloads going on consistently especially during peak hours. It was recently reported that Netflix and Youtube combined uses half of the internet's bandwidth.

ISPs were thinking far ahead while charging these hoggers for their content. As other sites get on with equal amounts of content being consumed on a daily basis EG: Something as popular or more popular than Netflix is bound to emerge... It just makes more sense for the ISPs to prefer people use their own content. Why shouldn't Netflix pay more?

The ISPs can only build up their infrastructure so fast. Look at Google. Despite how amazing it is that they can produce fiber internet, they are only in five cities!

A fundamental problem with the Pro neuters agenda is the notion that ISPs will start charging people for how much content they use. While this is technically accurate. It has nothing to do with the data/bandwidth/your pocket. It's billion dollar companies fighting with each other. Nowhere near the personal level.
 
Last edited:
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...


Apparently, for whatever reason, it's standard procedure for the FCC not to release the full details of rules changes until after they are approved. Seems weird, but he's not doing anything unusual.
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry dude, but that is incredibly naïve. I don't even know where to begin. A government decision has the force of law behind it. a corporate decision does not. A decision like this is made by unelected bureaucrats accountable to no one. The idea that you would welcome such sweeping changes backed by the force of law brought into being by people not elected or accountable to the people is frightening. Try, for once, viewing big government with the same skeptical eye that you view big business. In reality, you should be more skeptical and cautious of state power because the state has a monopoly on the use of force.
 
longview said:
My fear is that Government did it!
Click to expand...

Because you'd rather have google or verizon or comcast doing it?

Seriously, what is with people and their paranoia of govt? But they happily hand their data over to big companies all the time (who then turn around and give it straight to the govt, but that's a different thread)

At least with govt, we can elect different people who can then appoint different FCC regulators. With big business, very few of us have any real choice in our ISP providers.

And please let me know if your phones - regulated under the same provision - are set so you can't complain about the govt over them....
 
Fletch said:
Sorry dude, but that is incredibly naïve. I don't even know where to begin. A government decision has the force of law behind it. a corporate decision does not. A decision like this is made by unelected bureaucrats accountable to no one. The idea that you would welcome such sweeping changes backed by the force of law brought into being by people not elected or accountable to the people is frightening. Try, for once, viewing big government with the same skeptical eye that you view big business. In reality, you should be more skeptical and cautious of state power because the state has a monopoly on the use of force.
Click to expand...

govt IS accountable to the people. Much more than big corporations.
 
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...
Who the hell is Tom Wheeler? How and why this guy no one has heard of has the power to alter something that effects virtually every American without debate is something everyone should oppose.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Apparently, for whatever reason, it's standard procedure for the FCC not to release the full details of rules changes until after they are approved. Seems weird, but he's not doing anything unusual.
Click to expand...

I read that as well and think that that standard procedure is a load of BS. Something as big as this should have been discussed more publicly.
 
Fletch said:
Sorry dude, but that is incredibly naïve. I don't even know where to begin. A government decision has the force of law behind it. a corporate decision does not. A decision like this is made by unelected bureaucrats accountable to no one. The idea that you would welcome such sweeping changes backed by the force of law brought into being by people not elected or accountable to the people is frightening. Try, for once, viewing big government with the same skeptical eye that you view big business. In reality, you should be more skeptical and cautious of state power because the state has a monopoly on the use of force.
Click to expand...

And for once maybe you shouldn't assume a regulation you know nothing about is a disaster.

I am skeptical of my government. Unlike you, however, I only oppose something after I know what it is.
 
paddymcdougall said:
govt IS accountable to the people. Much more than big corporations.
Click to expand...
That is totally false. A big corporation that isn't responsive to the consumer goes out of business. No one voted for this new regulation, no one debated it. Our elected officials didn't vote on it. This is being IMPOSED by the state by unelected bureaucrats.
 
Fletch said:
Who the hell is Tom Wheeler? How and why this guy no one has heard of has the power to alter something that effects virtually every American without debate is something everyone should oppose.
Click to expand...

A former venture capitalist lobbyist that Obama appointed in 2013.

Aren't you glad you asked?
 
Deuce said:
And for once maybe you shouldn't assume a regulation you know nothing about is a disaster.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it would be a disaster now did I. That is just you being unable to actually address what I said. Come on deuce, put some effort into it
 
tres borrachos said:
A former venture capitalist lobbyist that Obama appointed in 2013.

Aren't you glad you asked?
Click to expand...
Oh hes a lobbyist?? Then everything should turn out just fine. Everyone agrees that lobbyists should be in charge of legislation/regulation
 
Fletch said:
Oh hes a lobbyist?? Then everything should turn out just fine. Everyone agrees that lobbyists should be in charge of legislation/regulation
Click to expand...

Yes. You remember how Obama promised that he wouldn't let lobbyists impact any decisions, right? Yes, I do too.

That is of course except that the lobbyists he appointed to make decisions he likes. Then lobbyists=good people.
 
Fletch said:
That is totally false. A big corporation that isn't responsive to the consumer goes out of business. No one voted for this new regulation, no one debated it. Our elected officials didn't vote on it. This is being IMPOSED by the state by unelected bureaucrats.
Click to expand...

Companies will literally make decisions knowing that more people will die as a result, because that decision improves the bottom line. They will let you die for profit.

Don't act like business is sufficiently overseen by "the invisible hand." It's horse****.
 
Fletch said:
That is totally false. A big corporation that isn't responsive to the consumer goes out of business. No one voted for this new regulation, no one debated it. Our elected officials didn't vote on it. This is being IMPOSED by the state by unelected bureaucrats.
Click to expand...

Somebody will sue and somebody will introduce legislation to stop it. It is how the regulatory process works.
 
Deuce said:
Companies will literally make decisions knowing that more people will die as a result, because that decision improves the bottom line. They will let you die for profit.

Don't act like business is sufficiently overseen by "the invisible hand." It's horse****.
Click to expand...
Do purposely miss the point of everything I say? Or are you just not understanding what I say?
 
tres borrachos said:
Yes. You remember how Obama promised that he wouldn't let lobbyists impact any decisions, right? Yes, I do too.

That is of course except that the lobbyists he appointed to make decisions he likes. Then lobbyists=good people.
Click to expand...

Can you remember the last time a politician said that lobbyists WOULD impact their decisions?
 
Fletch said:
Do purposely miss the point of everything I say? Or are you just not understanding what I say?
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. You are wrong. The idea that a business is more accountable to the population than the government, and therefore is somehow more trustworthy, is wrong.
 
Declan said:
Somebody will sue and somebody will introduce legislation to stop it. It is how the regulatory process works.
Click to expand...
There is no reason for the courts to stop this that I can see. And any legislation will be vetoed. So the rules will stand for at least two years and will probably be very hard to undo if not impossible. So we are likely stuck with this decision for good or ill. That is not how a free society should operate.
 
Deuce said:
I understand what you are saying. You are wrong. The idea that a business is more accountable to the population than the government, and therefore is somehow more trustworthy, is wrong.
Click to expand...
Businesses go out of business all the time for precisely that reason. Governments only grow more powerful. Again, try to be a least a little skeptical when the state issues a new edict. Dont just swallow it whole because that edict came from your guy.
 
Fletch said:
Who the hell is Tom Wheeler? How and why this guy no one has heard of has the power to alter something that effects virtually every American without debate is something everyone should oppose.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is when he was appointed most of us were worried he'd line up with the big telecom and ISP providers on everything, given his background (he was a cable company lobbyist). He's turned out to actually be an independent thinker.

By the way - he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Not like no one knew who he was.
FCC Leadership | FCC.gov

And setting regulations IS HIS JOB. He's doing it.
 
Fletch said:
That is totally false. A big corporation that isn't responsive to the consumer goes out of business. No one voted for this new regulation, no one debated it. Our elected officials didn't vote on it. This is being IMPOSED by the state by unelected bureaucrats.
Click to expand...

Not really. Businesses will continue on their way even if consumers don't like it. It's rare they get punished for bad decisions.

Wheeler was appointed by Pres Obama and confirmed by the Senate - unanimously.
 
paddymcdougall said:
The funny thing is when he was appointed most of us were worried he'd line up with the big telecom and ISP providers on everything, given his background (he was a cable company lobbyist). He's turned out to actually be an independent thinker.

By the way - he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Not like no one knew who he was.
FCC Leadership | FCC.gov

And setting regulations IS HIS JOB. He's doing it.
Click to expand...
Im not saying he lacks the authority to do it, I am saying he should lack the authority to do it. Congress set up these agencies and they now operate like an unelected fourth branch of government. And that isn't a good thing. Free people should be governed, not ruled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom