• 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

ModerateGOP said:
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.
Click to expand...

a lot of it depends on how many big players are buying their way into the fast lane. that makes the slow lane narrower and narrower. anyway, it's not just about us. it's also about the next twitter, Facebook, or Netflix. try starting up one of those when you don't just have to buy fast servers but you also have to pay a toll to stay out of the slow lane.

ModerateGOP said:
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?
Click to expand...

as i said, a startup that can't afford preferential treatment is that much more unlikely to get a foothold.

ModerateGOP said:
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!
Click to expand...

judging by the ridiculous cost we pay for high speed access, they can figure out some way to keep up with data demands without dividing the internet up into fast and slow lanes.

ModerateGOP said:
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.
Click to expand...

it's my opinion that some of them own too much of the market, and we'd all be better off if there was a bit more competition.
 
From what I've gathered, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, large data volume data content providers, such as NetFlix, can't / aren't allowed to invest and pay for the high speed data lines to the head ends of ISPs network to effectively distribute their content anymore. So given this disincentive, they aren't going to anymore.

So if everyone ready to accept NetFlix that doesn't download and play properly? A sure fire way to please your customers. Seems almost like these regs are going to kill the new content media companies.
 
Fletch said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would rather it not had come to this, but it was inevitable. Many of the same people who lament the government becoming involved were the same people who bitched that companies were charging a select group of bandwidth hogs extra to suck up their bandwidth and how that was wrong. Enacting regulations allowing peering charges and tiered servicing is simply a way to avoid a bunch of litigation down the road with courts imposing their will upon the industry.
 
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...

somebody should be quite embarrassed for even needing that explained to them
 
joG said:
It also will under price data movement in the net and so lead to reduced investment, slower advance and too much traffic.
Click to expand...

No it won't. Everyone who connects to the internet pays their ISP for a certain upload and download speed. If hypothetically you pay for a 20 megabit per second download rate and a 3 megabit per second upload rate for 20 bucks a month then that is all you are going to get, you will never exceed that speed.It doesn't matter if the website you are viewing has a 1000 or a billion megabit per second upload rate because as long as you are paying for 20 megabit per second download rate your download speed will never exceed 20 megabits per second. If you want it to exceed that speed then you must upgrade your service and pay you ISP for that service.
 
Declan said:
I would rather it not had come to this, but it was inevitable. Many of the same people who lament the government becoming involved were the same people who bitched that companies were charging a select group of bandwidth hogs extra to suck up their bandwidth and how that was wrong. Enacting regulations allowing peering charges and tiered servicing is simply a way to avoid a bunch of litigation down the road with courts imposing their will upon the industry.
Click to expand...

My understanding is the government was already involved. The regulations passed today were to replace old regulations that had been successfully challenged by Verizon.
 
Declan said:
I would rather it not had come to this, but it was inevitable. Many of the same people who lament the government becoming involved were the same people who bitched that companies were charging a select group of bandwidth hogs extra to suck up their bandwidth and how that was wrong. Enacting regulations allowing peering charges and tiered servicing is simply a way to avoid a bunch of litigation down the road with courts imposing their will upon the industry.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to learn who was doing the bitching, since that got this administration involved. Nothing happens without a reason.
 
Helix said:
1. judging by the ridiculous cost we pay for high speed access, they can figure out some way to keep up with data demands without dividing the internet up into fast and slow lanes.

2. it's my opinion that some of them own too much of the market, and we'd all be better off if there was a bit more competition.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to talk about the first part of your response because that's just hypothetical. We'll see if It is NN or not that really harms the startups. My guess it will end up being NN itself.

1. The problem is. It's three sites and really one that's causing trouble. Netflix paid the companies instead of taking them to court for this in the first place! They already have deals in place with the ISPs. I'm not so sure how that relationship will change now.

2. Yes, but how exactly does the NN legislation prevent monopolies? I don't see that anywhere in any of the reviews!
 
leoborn said:
It would be interesting to learn who was doing the bitching, since that got this administration involved. Nothing happens without a reason.
Click to expand...

Mostly Netflix, then all the other smaller internet sites came on board. It's really an online social movement combined with civil liberty lobbyists that forced this.
 
jamesrage said:
No it won't. Everyone who connects to the internet pays their ISP for a certain upload and download speed. If hypothetically you pay for a 20 megabit per second download rate and a 3 megabit per second upload rate for 20 bucks a month then that is all you are going to get, you will never exceed that speed.It doesn't matter if the website you are viewing has a 1000 or a billion megabit per second upload rate because as long as you are paying for 20 megabit per second download rate your download speed will never exceed 20 megabits per second. If you want it to exceed that speed then you must upgrade your service and pay you ISP for that service.
Click to expand...

Sounds like it's money at the bottom of this, and the FCC is making the rules for the benefit of the providers. If that's true - it figures!
 
ModerateGOP said:
I'm not going to talk about the first part of your response because that's just hypothetical. We'll see if It is NN or not that really harms the startups. My guess it will end up being NN itself.

1. The problem is. It's three sites and really one that's causing trouble. Netflix paid the companies instead of taking them to court for this in the first place! They already have deals in place with the ISPs. I'm not so sure how that relationship will change now.

2. Yes, but how exactly does the NN legislation prevent monopolies? I don't see that anywhere in any of the reviews!
Click to expand...

NN discourages monopolies by treating a startup face book or twitter's data the same way that it treats a dominant myspace's data. that's a big part of the equation when a monolith can lose to a startup simply because the startup is considered to be cooler or better in some way.

and i would argue that a big part of the problem is that ISPs in the US have become so few and so dominant. regulation of the kind of market we have is appropriate, though i would have preferred for congress to pass a law ensuring a neutral internet.
 
Helix said:
NN discourages monopolies by treating a startup face book or twitter's data the same way that it treats a dominant myspace's data. that's a big part of the equation when a monolith can lose to a startup simply because the startup is considered to be cooler or better in some way.

and i would argue that a big part of the problem is that ISPs in the US have become so few and so dominant. regulation of the kind of market we have is appropriate, though i would have preferred for congress to pass a law ensuring a neutral internet.
Click to expand...

Not really. Netflix was able to afford the whatever price the ISP set. They just didn't want to compress their files making it easier on the ISPs, customers internet, and the spectrum itself etc... It's not a startup. It's a public company with a Billion dollar valuation trading publicly on the stock market. Also Myspace isn't dominant anymore...

The very basics of how internet traffic works let's you know that NN is just a farce and/or will become obsolete very, very quickly!
 
leoborn said:
Sounds like it's money at the bottom of this, and the FCC is making the rules for the benefit of the providers. If that's true - it figures!
Click to expand...

Basically it's Billion Dollar companies fighting with each other. Just a few Billion dollar companies and their friends were able to use a slick social media campaign to get the majority of the public on their side. Yet no one sees the problem with that ;)
 
leoborn said:
Sounds like it's money at the bottom of this, and the FCC is making the rules for the benefit of the providers. If that's true - it figures!
Click to expand...

Why should we care about companies that shield billions in profits from taxes offshore every year having to spend some of that money onshore? The "net neutrality" argument itself is a bunch of BS. The whole idea that is means that a start-up will not be able to compete with Facebook et als because they cannot afford the fast lane is fantasy. A start up is not going to have the traffic and suck up the bandwidth enough to where comcast etc would even bother. By forcing Google and and Facebook to shell out some of the money they rack in dominating the online ad market means that others can be more competitive with them because they would have less money to buy out the competition.
 
Declan said:
Why should we care about companies that shield billions in profits from taxes offshore every year having to spend some of that money onshore? The "net neutrality" argument itself is a bunch of BS. The whole idea that is means that a start-up will not be able to compete with Facebook et als because they cannot afford the fast lane is fantasy. A start up is not going to have the traffic and suck up the bandwidth enough to where comcast etc would even bother. By forcing Google and and Facebook to shell out some of the money they rack in dominating the online ad market means that others can be more competitive with them because they would have less money to buy out the competition.
Click to expand...

I'm quite surprised you see it that way, yourself. Aren't you glad it's Title II now? Your position seems to be a conservative one.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Not really. Netflix was able to afford the whatever price the ISP set. They just didn't want to compress their files making it easier on the ISPs, customers internet, and the spectrum itself etc... It's not a startup. It's a public company with a Billion dollar valuation trading publicly on the stock market. Also Myspace isn't dominant anymore...
Click to expand...

i'm talking about when FB and twitter were able to make that happen. start charging startups a toll to stay out of the slow lane, and it makes it less likely that they will get a foothold.

ModerateGOP said:
The very basics of how internet traffic works let's you know that NN is just a farce and/or will become obsolete very, very quickly!
Click to expand...

i disagree.
 
Helix said:
i'm talking about when FB and twitter were able to make that happen. start charging startups a toll to stay out of the slow lane, and it makes it less likely that they will get a foothold.
Click to expand...

It's also likely that the FCC will come at those same startups and wonder, "How the heck are you using such crazy amounts of bandwidth?" Kinda like the SEC and stockbrokers, "How the heck are you making Billions of dollars?" If they attract the attention of ISPs they would attract the attention of the government first. One would hope, if the supporters want all of these new regulations to work properly. They, the government WOULD be keeping an eye on these data hoggers and tell them to knock it off. That is the end goal here.

In fact, there might be future regulations that implement the very thing you are talking about. Startup signs a contract with the government (instead of paying ISP) saying, "I promise not to use this amount of bandwidth." It could even be a universal number. If they do go over that. FCC will fine them. Big Time! I actually see this legislation coming sooner rather than later.

Either way, everyone is halting right now because all or most of their current contracts are now up for review and no one knows what could happen, change, or be implemented/ignored.
 
ModerateGOP said:
It's also likely that the FCC will come at those same startups and wonder, "How the heck are you using such crazy amounts of bandwidth?" Kinda like the SEC and stockbrokers, "How the heck are you making Billions of dollars?" If they attract the attention of ISPs they would attract the attention of the government first. One would hope, if the supporters want all of these new regulations to work properly. They, the government WOULD be keeping an eye on these data hoggers and tell them to knock it off. That is the end goal here.
Click to expand...

then pass a clean NN bill, and i will support it. i would prefer that to an FCC regulation.

ModerateGOP said:
In fact, there might be future regulations that implement the very thing you are talking about. Startup signs a contract with the government (instead of paying ISP) saying, "I promise not to use this amount of bandwidth." It could even be a universal number. If they do go over that. FCC will fine them. Big Time! I actually see this legislation coming sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

i guess we'll just have to wait and see.
 
Helix said:
then pass a clean NN bill, and i will support it. i would prefer that to an FCC regulation.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call 300+ pages clean but I would have liked to read some of it beforehand...
 
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...

So Obama has saved millions of lives around the world because this decision. Wow, just awesome I'm so proud to be American.
 
ModerateGOP said:
I'm quite surprised you see it that way, yourself. Aren't you glad it's Title II now? Your position seems to be a conservative one.
Click to expand...

You can label it however you want. My position is that I would rather see billionaires fighting each other than bleeding consumers dry. Maybe now the capitalists will actually have to use some of their own money to create capital instead of soaking the consumers for the cost of all the infrastructure improvements.
 
The Man said:
I worry about this decision because from what I've read, there is nothing stopping ISPs from jacking up rates to make up the difference now that they can't charge companies more for faster download speeds. They'll just raise the rate for everyone, and in turn pass it on to the consumer.

Plus, now that the FCC has control, it is only a matter of time until decency standards are mandated, no cursing, no nudity, etc., just like with network television and radio. Freedom of speech and expression will be stifled.

This does not sound at all like a good thing to me.
Click to expand...

How would the FCC control that being their jurisdiction would end at the country's border?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom