• 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

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

Satellite companies will lower your speed in a second if you exceed upload/download limits.

And phone companies limit you on data as well, though don't know if they cap your speed.

And net neutrality isn't about whether or not they cap your data. It's about whether a particular site will get served to you faster because of who they pay off vs. a site that doesn't pay anyone off. Net neutrality stops that
 
Satellite companies will lower your speed in a second if you exceed upload/download limits.

And phone companies limit you on data as well, though don't know if they cap your speed.

And net neutrality isn't about whether or not they cap your data. It's about whether a particular site will get served to you faster because of who they pay off vs. a site that doesn't pay anyone off. Net neutrality stops that

I dont care.. if I cant afford more why shouldnt they...
rigfht now I have ZERO..I dont buy it.,.
 
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:

Well what you posted is not part of a company like Verizon's pricing or ability to charge a customer.... tarrifs are not part of pricing, Universal Service Fund is not part of pricing, Taxes and Fees are not part of pricing. They have zero to do with costs a Tier 1 provider like Verizon charges a customer for data usage. Those (tarrifs, USF and Taxes/fees are fees over and above the company's pricing and depending on the state, are a % calculation on the amount of dollars charged to the customer.
 
Well what you posted is not part of a company like Verizon's pricing or ability to charge a customer.... tarrifs are not part of pricing, Universal Service Fund is not part of pricing, Taxes and Fees are not part of pricing. They have zero to do with costs a Tier 1 provider like Verizon charges a customer for data usage. Those (tarrifs, USF and Taxes/fees are fees over and above the company's pricing and depending on the state, are a % calculation on the amount of dollars charged to the customer.

I'm aware. It was an example of information that is out there.
 
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?
then share with us what the article got wrong
 
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.

Seems rather recurring and typical of this administration's regulatory and legislative agenda, doesn't it?

Along with 'You can't read it until after you vote for it' (applies to ObamaCare and these FCC Regs - all 320 pages of them)

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

No permissible in the eyes of this administration.

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!

Yeah, it is, but not the providers.
Liberal philanthropist George Soros and the Ford Foundation have lavished groups supporting the administration’s “net neutrality” agenda, donating $196 million and landing proponents on the White House staff, according to a new report.

And now, as the Federal Communications Commission nears approving a type of government control over the Internet, the groups are poised to declare
victory in the years-long fight, according to the report from MRC Business, an arm of the conservative media watchdog, the Media Research Center.

“The Ford Foundation, which claims to be the second-largest private foundation in the U.S., and Open Society Foundations, founded by far-left billionaire George Soros, have given more than $196 million to pro-net neutrality groups between 2000 and 2013,” said the report, authored by Media Research Center’s Joseph Rossell, and provided to Secrets.

“These left-wing groups not only impacted the public debate and funded top liberal think tanks from the Center for American Progress to Free Press.

They also have direct ties to the White House and regulatory agencies. At least five individuals from these groups have ascended to key positions at the White House and FCC,” said the report which included funding details to pro-net neutrality advocates.

It quoted critic Phil Kerpen, president of American Commitment, saying, “The biggest money in this debate is from the liberal foundations that lavish millions on self-styled grassroots groups pushing for more and more regulation and federal control.”

Groups funded by Soros and Ford include the Center for American Progress, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Media Matters for America. They received a total of $54,226,097 from the Ford and Open Society Foundations.
Soros, Ford Foundation shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to White House | WashingtonExaminer.com

Soros, Ford Foundation Donated Nearly $200M to Pro-Net Neutrality Groups

George Soros and the Leftist Ford Foundation Financed Fight for Net Neutrality

What I can't figure is why. How is it an advantage to Soros, et. al. that the Federal Government has it's fingers in the Internet.

Regulating the Internet like a public utility? Just exactly how innovative have public utilities been over the last 20 years? Not really. Expecting the same to happen to the Internet. Government involvement always means higher prices and worse service.
 
then share with us what the article got wrong

read it.. it says Cohen said 98% are not affected....(hence this is NOT A REAL PROBLEM)

This is Obama " spreading the wealth" to those who cant pay for access by harming those that can pay for the services they have today and can pay for easily as Luther has stated
 
Seems rather recurring and typical of this administration's regulatory and legislative agenda, doesn't it?

Along with 'You can't read it until after you vote for it' (applies to ObamaCare and these FCC Regs - all 320 pages of them)



No permissible in the eyes of this administration.



Yeah, it is, but not the providers.
Soros, Ford Foundation shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to White House | WashingtonExaminer.com

Soros, Ford Foundation Donated Nearly $200M to Pro-Net Neutrality Groups

George Soros and the Leftist Ford Foundation Financed Fight for Net Neutrality

What I can't figure is why. How is it an advantage to Soros, et. al. that the Federal Government has it's fingers in the Internet.

Regulating the Internet like a public utility? Just exactly how innovative have public utilities been over the last 20 years? Not really. Expecting the same to happen to the Internet. Government involvement always means higher prices and worse service.



because this is the trojan horse and just the beginning of content control by local municipalites.. soon you will need a license to have a computer..
 
becaus ethis is the trojan horse and just the beginning of content control by local munipalites.. soon you will need a license to have a computer..

*snort*
 

is that even a valid non TOS violation of a response or a simple troll...?


let me guess you think Obamacare is about "care"?

why did Soros put 200 million to have this pushed? because he cared about "speed of service"?

ohhhh no.. this is about content control..
 
I'm aware. It was an example of information that is out there.

So what the FCC released then does not contain information that supports what you stated which was ... "...net neutrality does not preclude such pricing options."
 
because this is the trojan horse and just the beginning of content control by local municipalites.. soon you will need a license to have a computer..

If so, how does that benefit Soros et. al?

Mind you, I'm pretty much against this, as much the same line of argumentation in support of this as was used in support of ObamaCare, and, well, THAT was sold on a pile of lies, so one has to figure that this one is too.
 
is that even a valid non TOS violation of a response or a simple troll...?


let me guess you think Obamacare is about "care"?

why did Soros put 200 million to have this pushed? because he cared about "speed of service"?

ohhhh no.. this is about content control..

What? No mention of Alinksy?
 
read it.. it says Cohen said 98% are not affected....(hence this is NOT A REAL PROBLEM)

This is Obama " spreading the wealth" to those who cant pay for access by harming those that can pay for the services they have today and can pay for easily as Luther has stated

so, your position is those with wealth (that 2%) should be allowed to crowd out of the internet those who do not
not a surprise
more advocacy of a position which is against personal interest
 
is that even a valid non TOS violation of a response or a simple troll...?


let me guess you think Obamacare is about "care"?

why did Soros put 200 million to have this pushed? because he cared about "speed of service"?

ohhhh no.. this is about content control..

Whoever controls the Internet, controls the future of pretty much everything, as everything is being digitized, if it hasn't already been.

Control the content the sheeple can access, you'll control the sheeple and what they think, who they'll support, what public policy they'll vote for.

All rather worrying that the government is now got it's fingers in there, and you juts know that they'll not stop there, they'll only expand their grasp and control of it, as they always do.
 
If so, how does that benefit Soros et. al?

Mind you, I'm pretty much against this, as much the same line of argumentation in support of this as was used in support of ObamaCare, and, well, THAT was sold on a pile of lies, so one has to figure that this one is too.

This dovetails with the Fairness Doctrine that they are pushing...they know the net is where like talk radio Conservatives can get their voice out...and of course Soros believes in and funds the take down of the USA and a One World Order.. so this is all about control..
 
Last edited:
so, your position is those with wealth (that 2%) should be allowed to crowd out of the internet those who do not
not a surprise
more advocacy of a position which is against personal interest

good God...... how do you come to that ? the article says only 2% of current internet subscriberes would be "helped" by this take over..

who said anythign about wealth?
 
good God...... how do you come to that ? the article says only 2% of current internet subscriberes would be "helped" by this take over..

who said anythign about wealth?

seems you missed the very basis of the issue
would those with more wealth be able to buy priority access to the internet
to the detriment of those without wealth
 
Whoever controls the Internet, controls the future of pretty much everything, as everything is being digitized, if it hasn't already been.

Control the content the sheeple can access, you'll control the sheeple and what they think, who they'll support, what public policy they'll vote for.

All rather worrying that the government is now got it's fingers in there, and you juts know that they'll not stop there, they'll only expand their grasp and control of it, as they always do.

pretty much spot on.. they cant compete on TV anymore as the do not have that monopoly on the news with Fox now ... so this is a red herring ( speed of content ) to get a foot in the door to regulate by what gets taxed and what doesnt.. what sites remain free which have to pay to stay up.. much like the IRS people( sites ) will be targeted...
 
seems you missed the very basis of the issue
would those with more wealth be able to buy priority access to the internet
to the detriment of those without wealth

who knows.. you dont know..but this REAKS and history tells us its going to be a disaster ..BIBLICAL


what was complaint wiht the internet the way it was..?
 
Last edited:
Whoever controls the Internet, controls the future of pretty much everything, as everything is being digitized, if it hasn't already been.

Control the content the sheeple can access, you'll control the sheeple and what they think, who they'll support, what public policy they'll vote for.

All rather worrying that the government is now got it's fingers in there, and you juts know that they'll not stop there, they'll only expand their grasp and control of it, as they always do.
it's true; even a blind squirrel gets a nut every once in a while

and now the FCC has ruled that the rich do not get to control the internet, which control would be detrimental to those without wealth
 
because this is the trojan horse and just the beginning of content control by local municipalites.. soon you will need a license to have a computer..

Do you need a license to have a phone?

Paranoia much?
 
Back
Top Bottom