• 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

How would the FCC control that being their jurisdiction would end at the country's border?

Right, their jurisdiction ends at this country's borders. They wouldn't have control over other countries' Internet content, just ours.
 
somebody should be quite embarrassed for even needing that explained to them
I don't embarrass very easily, especially when dealing with statist liberals who not only don't understand how the market works, but cling to the childlike belief that the state is there to serve them
 
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.

I haven't swallowed anything. You're the one deciding something is bad without knowing what it is. I am the one waiting to see the specifics.
 
Elaborate? The net neutrality rules are based on the idea that end users pay for bandwidth not content providers.

Consumers always pay in one way or another. The question is which pay how much. The important thing is getting that relation right. If the individual user does not pay for the amount he uses, the price system cannot optimize the system. It is inefficient.
That means it will cost more and deliver poorer qualities. That is fine, if you have other priorities. But it is important to know, what the real price of the decision is.
 
I love unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats passing law.
 
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.

It's called learning from 5000 years of history.
 
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.

Business has little control of those things outside of itself, while government can control everyone and everything. See the difference yet?
 
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****.

Government kills people quite literally by the millions. I don't think this is the battle you want to be in.
 
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....

Seriously? Phone companies, NSA warrantless wiretapping. That's why you don't trust Government. You don't trust the keepers of "regulation" who redefine something for the purpose of expanding Governmental powers.
 
govt IS accountable to the people. Much more than big corporations.

Huh? How many from NSA in jail for doing warrantless wiretapping? How many of the Keating 5 actually went to jail? Government is the least accountable "big corporation" out there.
 
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.

Tom Wheeler was a "industry insider" for years and he decided to get political and raise $500,000 for Obama. Quid pro quo.. at it's finest..
 
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.

He held those positions LONG before internet was a thing. Fact his last job as a lobbyist in Cable was in 1986. He had a bigger impact at CITA when he started in 1992..
 
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....
Specifically, If I do not like my ISP, I have other choices.
If I do not like my land line telephone provider, I am stuck with them based on my geography.
Ant this is thanks to the FCC.
Cable companies the same, until ISPs started delivering tv services.
So in the two examples in the past, the FCC has limited choices, not expanded them.
 
Consumers always pay in one way or another. The question is which pay how much. The important thing is getting that relation right. If the individual user does not pay for the amount he uses, the price system cannot optimize the system. It is inefficient.
That means it will cost more and deliver poorer qualities. That is fine, if you have other priorities. But it is important to know, what the real price of the decision is.

Cable companies have started moving to capping bandwidth users of customers. That's directly tying usage to cost. That is by far the most clear way that consumers can gauge the cost and effectiveness of different providers.

A pricing system where both end users and content providers are charged is a murky pricing structure where the "true" cost of internet bandwidth is difficult to determine.

In the first system an end user can compare among different internet providers. In the secondary system the end user has no idea what their true cost is. They may be paying an extra 20 dollars a month through various content providers as well as their monthly fee.

I'm not sure how any market system is benefited from creating a murky cost structure for consumers. We see what has happened in the healthcare industry where we don't directly pay our direct service provider but instead a third party. It's a horrible system.
 
Here's the simple fact.

For all those claiming that this is "Keeping the internet as it is today" then the FCC will take NO proactive actions. Any regulatory action they take will simply be reactionary to attempts by telecoms to take action that would alter the notion of a free internet.

If the FCC begins to take pro-active regulatory action and impliment things, like a tax, onto service providers then it most definitely is not "keeping the internet as it is today" and legitimately is simply a regulatory power grab aimed at allowing the government to CONTROL internet access as opposed to MAINTAIN the status quo.

Attemtping to utilize it now being listed as a utility as a means of starting to pro-actively place regulation and taxes, SUPPOSEDLY in the name of expanding internet access to more people, is NOT simply attempting to "Maintain the Internet as it exists today".

If the action today is used SINGULARLY as a means of taking action when a telecom attempts to impliment a practice that conflicts with the basic net neutrality principle that all data should be treated equally, then that's fine and I applaud it and it would be doing what it is routinely being presented as doing.

If it's used to justify levying additional taxes on telecoms, enacting proactive regulations and restrictions on how much telecoms can charge or how they must treat data OTHER than treating it all equally, or any other sort of regulation that isn't strictly and narrowly related to the basic net neutrlaity principle then I'm not okay with it as it is simply a utilization of the notion of Net Neutrality to in truth simply grant an expansive and troublesome amount of Government Control onto the internet, essentially changing out one potential tormentor for another.
 
Last edited:
Government kills people quite literally by the millions. I don't think this is the battle you want to be in.

Read the thread instead of single posts.
 
Here's the simple fact.

For all those claiming that this is "Keeping the internet as it is today" then the FCC will take NO proactive actions. Any regulatory action they take will simply be reactionary to attempts by telecoms to take action that would alter the notion of a free internet.

If the FCC begins to take pro-active regulatory action and impliment things, like a tax, onto service providers then it most definitely is not "keeping the internet as it is today" and legitimately is simply a regulatory power grab aimed at allowing the government to CONTROL internet access as opposed to MAINTAIN the status quo.

Attemtping to utilize it now being listed as a utility as a means of starting to pro-actively place regulation and taxes, SUPPOSEDLY in the name of expanding internet access to more people, is NOT simply attempting to "Maintain the Internet as it exists today".

If the action today is used SINGULARLY as a means of taking action when a telecom attempts to impliment a practice that conflicts with the basic net neutrality principle that all data should be treated equally, then that's fine and I applaud it and it would be doing what it is routinely being presented as doing.

If it's used to justify levying additional taxes on telecoms, enacting proactive regulations and restrictions on how much telecoms can charge or how they must treat data OTHER than treating it all equally, or any other sort of regulation that isn't strictly and narrowly related to the basic net neutrlaity principle then I'm not okay with it as it is simply a utilization of the notion of Net Neutrality to in truth simply grant an expansive and troublesome amount of Government Control onto the internet, essentially changing out one potential tormentor for another.

Yes if different hypothetical things start hypothetically happening then I bet different opinions will form on the different things that are hypothetically happen.
 
Yes if different hypothetical things start hypothetically happening then I bet different opinions will form on the different things that are hypothetically happen.

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.
 
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.

This could be good. I think we need true Net Neutrality. But this is the FCC, so who really knows what we'll end up with.
 
Cable companies have started moving to capping bandwidth users of customers. That's directly tying usage to cost. That is by far the most clear way that consumers can gauge the cost and effectiveness of different providers.

A pricing system where both end users and content providers are charged is a murky pricing structure where the "true" cost of internet bandwidth is difficult to determine.

In the first system an end user can compare among different internet providers. In the secondary system the end user has no idea what their true cost is. They may be paying an extra 20 dollars a month through various content providers as well as their monthly fee.

I'm not sure how any market system is benefited from creating a murky cost structure for consumers. We see what has happened in the healthcare industry where we don't directly pay our direct service provider but instead a third party. It's a horrible system.

total nonsense... No provider has capped bandwtih to any paying customer..
 
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.



History tells us this is the frist step to have more and more goverment control... I dont think thats even deabatable and to me there ios zero upside to it..its a farce ..
 
This could be good. I think we need true Net Neutrality. But this is the FCC, so who really knows what we'll end up with.

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

Well that is the purpose of this site.
 
Back
Top Bottom