• 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

We will end up with yet another "right" to internet "access" - meaning yet another income redistribution program (mis?)managed at the federal government level. ;)

It already exists. Check your internet bill for rural internet tax.

(by Tim Devaney, WashingtonTimes.com) – The Federal Communications Commission [last week] overhauled two telephone subsidy programs for low-income Americans while adding a new broadband Internet subsidy.
 
Well yes, the reality is everything right now is HYPOTHETICAL because frankly we:

1. Don't know the full information within the provision that just got passed
2. We have no way of actually knowing how they plan on using the provisions we don't know

So everything people are talking about in this thread is basically based on hypotheticals, whether they're going about acknowledging that as clearly as I did or not. No one knows what was actually passed, nor does anyone know exactly how it's going to be done, so anyone claiming that this is a GOOD or a BAD thing is doing so based on the hypothetical assumptions in their head as to how it will play out.

Unlike others who seem to be taking a dedicated "this is good" or "this is bad" stance, assuming the hypothetical way they expect this to play out is the only way it will expect out, I decided I wanted to deal with the two broad potential ways I could see it playing out and expressing my views on it based on that. As it stands, I'm simply neutral to the notion of this passage, taking a "I'll wait and see" feeling, because there is plenty of legitimate and plausible factors and bits of context to lead one to think this could easily go either way.

I've been operating under the framework provided here:

https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-wheeler-proposes-new-rules-protecting-open-internet
 
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.

We dont know what it does really, because they did it in secret. And this is about MORE than just net neutrality. That is only one of the regulations. They basically nationalized the internet and now they can do pretty much what they want with it.
 
We will end up with yet another "right" to internet "access" - meaning yet another income redistribution program (mis?)managed at the federal government level. ;)

Good morning, ttwtt78640. :2wave:

:agree: At this point, it kinda looks that way, but since this will likely be challenged in court, who knows what we'll end up with? I doubt it will be an improvement, though. :no:
 
We dont know what it does really, because they did it in secret. And this is about MORE than just net neutrality. That is only one of the regulations. They basically nationalized the internet and now they can do pretty much what they want with it.

No, they really did not do that.

I'd bet money that when the regulations do make it to the federal register, you don't bother to read them and see if you're right.
 
Last edited:
Good morning, ttwtt78640. :2wave:

:agree: At this point, it kinda looks that way, but since this will likely be challenged in court, who knows what we'll end up with? I doubt it will be an improvement, though. :no:

An improvement? No. This is aimed at maintaining the status quo.
 
No, they really did not do that.

How do you know? Did you see the regulations? They classified it as a public utility under the communications act, which applies such rules as

S
EC. 202. [47 U.S.C. 202] DISCRIMINATION AND PREFERENCES.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or
unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations,
facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly
or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or
unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or
locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any
undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
 
We've had that for years. They just dont enforce it.

It seems like Comcast is running "trial" periods in some locations and expect to expand that

In the Nashville, Tennessee market, we have increased our monthly data usage plan for all XFINITY Internet tiers to 300 GB per month and also offer additional gigabytes in increments/blocks (e.g., $10.00 per 50 GB). This trial began on August 1, 2012.

In the Tucson, Arizona market, we announced in 2012 that the data amount included with Economy Plus through Performance XFINITY Internet tiers would increase from 250 GB to 300 GB. Those customers subscribed to the Blast! Internet tier, have received an increase in their data usage plan to 350 GB; Extreme 50 customers have received an increase to 450 GB; Extreme 105 customers have received an increase to 600 GB. As in our other trial market areas, we offer additional gigabytes in increments/blocks of 50 GB for $10.00 each in the event the customer exceeds their included data amount. This trial began on October 1, 2012.

In Huntsville and Mobile, Alabama; Atlanta, Augusta and Savannah, Georgia; Central Kentucky; Maine; Jackson, Mississippi; Knoxville and Memphis, Tennessee and Charleston, South Carolina, we have begun a trial which will increase our data usage plan for all XFINITY Internet tiers to 300 GB per month and will offer additional gigabytes in increments/blocks (e.g., $10.00 per 50 GB). In this trial, XFINITY Internet Economy Plus customers can choose to enroll in the Flexible-Data Option to receive a $5.00 credit on their monthly bill and reduce their data usage plan from 300 GB to 5 GB. If customers choose this option and use more than 5 GB of data in any given month, they will not receive the $5.00 credit and will be charged an additional $1.00 for each gigabyte of data used over the 5 GB included in the Flexible-Data Option. The trial dates for these regions were as follows: Hunstville – November 1, 2013; Mobile – October 1, 2013; Atlanta – December 1, 2013; Augusta – November 1, 2013; Savannah – September 1, 2013; Central Kentucky – September 1, 2013; Maine – December 1, 2013; Jackson – September 1, 2013; Knoxville – October 1, 2013; Memphis – November 1, 2013; Charleston – November 1, 2013.

In Fresno, California, Economy Plus customers also have the option of enrolling in the Flexible-Data Option. This trial began on August 22, 2013.

Each of these options requires that those who choose to use more of the service pay more than others. The Flexible-Data Option adds an alternative, permitting those who choose to use less to pay less.

What XFINITY Internet Data Usage Plans will Comcast be Launching?
 
How do you know? Did you see the regulations? They classified it as a public utility under the communications act, which applies such rules as

S

"Nationalization" has specific meaning and this isn't anywhere in the same galaxy as that.
 
Weird, I just read an article that stated Time Warner has caps and that Comcast is planning to institute the same.

Comcast, soon to own Time Warner Cable, plans to cap data usage for customers | syracuse.com


and...

who cares? if ya cant afford the larger package then I dont care.. Its not a God given right to have HULU and Netflix..

Your article even states TODAY it would only affect 2% of users?... so for 2% of users you gave away OUR FREEDOMS... and all ya have to do is buy the larger package this term "cap" is lib talk for " I want more for free"
 
Last edited:
Why are right-wingers so incredibly ignorant about everything? It's the same thing with climate change. Their beliefs are built on a foundation of ignorance and misinformation.
 
Weird, I just read an article that stated Time Warner has caps and that Comcast is planning to institute the same.

Comcast, soon to own Time Warner Cable, plans to cap data usage for customers | syracuse.com

Huh... so you agree capping internet usage is NOT a good thing yet, you buy capacity on your mobility phone for data and purchase a specific amount each month and if you go over you pay more. That's internet usage. You're capped with voice service so if a mobile phone minutes are exhausted, additional costs apply for any overages (we've all been there). Yet, when heavier users of say 600GB or 1,000GB a month use so much more than others you say they should NOT have to pay more.

People who own more LAND pay more taxes, people who make more money pay more taxes, people who buy more stuff pay more sales tax, people who drive more miles in their car pay more for gas.... but people who use more internet data SHOULDN'T have to pay more money..... how come?
 
Huh... so you agree capping internet usage is NOT a good thing yet, you buy capacity on your mobility phone for data and purchase a specific amount each month and if you go over you pay more. That's internet usage. You're capped with voice service so if a mobile phone minutes are exhausted, additional costs apply for any overages (we've all been there). Yet, when heavier users of say 600GB or 1,000GB a month use so much more than others you say they should NOT have to pay more.

People who own more LAND pay more taxes, people who make more money pay more taxes, people who buy more stuff pay more sales tax, people who drive more miles in their car pay more for gas.... but people who use more internet data SHOULDN'T have to pay more money..... how come?

Fortunately for all of us, net neutrality does not preclude such pricing options.
 
Fortunately for all of us, net neutrality does not preclude such pricing options.

That's good then.... That must be in the FCC regulations that will make things better so can you post where specifically it states the preclusion?

And that doesn't however help liveonramen's argument which seems to be about capping being a BAD thing.
 
and...

who cares? if ya cant afford the larger package then I dont care.. Its not a God given right to have HULU and Netflix..

Your article even states TODAY it would only affect 2% of users?... so for 2% of users you gave away OUR FREEDOMS... and all ya have to do is buy the larger package this term "cap" is lib talk for " I want more for free"

Actually, not. You should re-read my post because rather than refute it, you seem to head off on some crazy person tangent.
 
Huh... so you agree capping internet usage is NOT a good thing yet, you buy capacity on your mobility phone for data and purchase a specific amount each month and if you go over you pay more. That's internet usage. You're capped with voice service so if a mobile phone minutes are exhausted, additional costs apply for any overages (we've all been there). Yet, when heavier users of say 600GB or 1,000GB a month use so much more than others you say they should NOT have to pay more.

Not sure where you've gotten ANY of that. I've stated it's a fact and two people have stated it's not a fact. Your ass must be chapped from pulling all of that out of it.
 
That's good then.... That must be in the FCC regulations that will make things better so can you post where specifically it states the preclusion?
Does NOT preclude. There is no preclusion to state.

The regulations arne't published yet, but the fact sheet released by the FCC stated things like:

o Rate regulation: the Order makes clear that broadband providers shall not be subject to
tariffs or other form of rate approval, unbundling, or other forms of utility regulation
o Universal Service Contributions: the Order DOES NOT require broadband providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254
o The Order will not impose, suggest or authorize any new taxes or fees – there will be no automatic Universal Service fees applied and the congressional moratorium on Internet taxation applies to broadband.
 
Not sure where you've gotten ANY of that.
From your post obviously. Do you want to go on record stating the practice of capping fine?
I've stated it's a fact and two people have stated it's not a fact. Your ass must be chapped from pulling all of that out of it.

It's sweet you're concerned about my ass, but I'd like to go on record I'm a married man to a woman so...

Secondly, MY point (the other two people are irrelevant) is that capping does occur and the concept of those who use more pay more is common place in the market and society at large and has been. So... you're okay with capping and companies charging more to those who use more am I correct?
 
Actually, not. You should re-read my post because rather than refute it, you seem to head off on some crazy person tangent.

You seem to think you know about things you really dont.. but suffice to say this is a raping of our freedoms going forward..

I read your article.. did you?
 
Fortunately for all of us, net neutrality does not preclude such pricing options.

sure.. just more fees and taxes and how content will be charged to cover these new costs...

what was wrong with your internet yesterday?

Only a totla polly anna doenst see this as the first step to govement control and so mnay just gulping down this Obama lie as usual..
 
You seem to think you know about things you really dont.. but suffice to say this is a raping of our freedoms going forward..

I read your article.. did you?

https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-wheeler-proposes-new-rules-protecting-open-internet
Forbearance
Congress requires the FCC to refrain from enforcing – forbear from – provisions of the Communications
Act that are not in the public interest. The proposed Order applies some key provisions of Title II, and
forbears from most others. There is no need for any further proceedings before the forbearance is
adopted. The proposed Order would apply fewer sections of Title II than have applied to mobile voice
networks for over twenty years.
 
From your post obviously. Do you want to go on record stating the practice of capping fine?


It's sweet you're concerned about my ass, but I'd like to go on record I'm a married man to a woman so...

Secondly, MY point (the other two people are irrelevant) is that capping does occur and the concept of those who use more pay more is common place in the market and society at large and has been. So... you're okay with capping and companies charging more to those who use more am I correct?

Actually if you read my post both questions are answered. Short answer, yes to end users, no to charging content providers.
 
Back
Top Bottom