• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [5:15 am CDT] - in 15 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • 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

justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...

what rich? this is pure liberal tripe...you squandered your freedoms on the Obama unicorn

Soros IS THE RICH
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...

I'm not certain that I agree with that interpretation of this these regulations.

If NetFlix wants access to an ISP's network and customer base, I don't see a problem with NetFix being charged to do so. As they are being charged for this access and are delivering their heavy bandwidth demanding content, I don't see a problem where they also foot the bill for the high speed lines to deliver their content to the ISP's network head end.

All this equates to better performance and reduced expenses for the customer (the ISP - and their customers - don't have to pay for the high speed lines between NetFix and their head end). So what's the problem here?

Content start ups aren't going to demand as much bandwidth, as they are a start up with a small user base. By the time they need to consider adopting the above NetFlix network model, they'll be a well funded company and will be able to afford it. Again, so what's the problem here?

Why **** around with something that's working?

I think supporters of this have been sold a bill a good by this administration, once again.

We already know that this is going to end up in the courts, as many others regulatory and legislative initiatives of this administration. All too typical.
 
paddymcdougall said:
What many conservatives think about Ted Cruz's opposition to net neutrality. Spoiler: they aren't happy with him

After nonsensical comments on Net Neutrality, conservatives rage against Ted Cruz
Click to expand...

paddymcdougall said:
I recommend people look at the comments in this article and related facebook page before coming up with world-ending scenarios
Click to expand...

As if the Kos is a source of impartial and unbiased information. Please.

For all we know there could be 10 times the number of supportive posts or tweets or whatever, and the Kos would never even mention them.
 
eohrnberger said:
As if the Kos is a source of impartial and unbiased information. Please.

For all we know there could be 10 times the number of supportive posts or tweets or whatever, and the Kos would never even mention them.
Click to expand...

They did mention that there were comments supporting him as well. Did you read it?

But go look at cruz's FB page directly if you want - there is a link to it from the article.
 
paddymcdougall said:
They did mention that there were comments supporting him as well. Did you read it?

But go look at cruz's FB page directly if you want - there is a link to it from the article.
Click to expand...

Can't. Not here at work.
 
brothern said:
... because we all have dealt with cable television packages that offer premium channel upgrade options.

No one in their right mind wants to be paying $50 to "upgrade" to a package that offers Wikipedia. Or be held-up by your ISP throttling your service until you pay a service fee.

We've also seen it in practice. The ISPs have been experimenting with data caps in several markets. Comcast and Verizon were charging Netflix a fee to "ensure" that its data streams to customers weren't being interrupted.
Click to expand...


no, Netflix was given peers upstream peers for downstream traffic as a courtesy. The negotiations were for direct pipes to comcast and verizion. The common excuse for "net neutrality" is comcast/netflix.

However, this has NOTHING to do with net neutrality, and even less to do with obama's fake "net neutrality" plan.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...



"net neutrality" is every packet of the same type equal.


This "plan" is not "net neutrality".
 
eohrnberger said:
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.
Click to expand...

And not responding to complaints about unfair and discriminatory treatment. Think IRS scandal.
 
ModerateGOP said:
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 ;)
Click to expand...

Not yet, but they will when it's too late!
 
Deuce said:
I've been operating under the framework provided here:

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

All well and good, but it's a framework. A framework for something 100's of pages long. This is actually my precise point.

If all that ends up happening is them reactively enforcing the three "Bright Line Rules" listed here, that's no problem. But just in the way they describe them..."the first three", suggests there's more than just that (else it would be "the three" or "the only three").

That's my problem. If all this regulation was going to do was give them authority to mandate "no blocking", "no throttling", and "no paid prioritization" and actually enforce that then it wouldn't likely take 300 pages, it wouldn't likely be kept from public review, and it wouldn't be presented as seemingly the first of multiple new rules.

Like I said initially, if it just winds up being that the regulations that occur simply focus on those three basic net neutrality principles, and do not expand beyond or is not used for broad regulatory actions then I'm perfectly okay with this. But even from the framework you laid out, it's made abundantly clear that those three things aren't the only potential rules that may end up coming down. The REALITY is we don't know for sure what all this is going to allow the government to do, or what this current leadership or future leadership of the FCC will do with the new found power. As such, whether this is a good or bad thing in a long term sense is something I honestly don't know and can't answer. It's something that, in theory...if what is being pitched is honest and the excess it seem's to imply is simply fluff then I think it'll be a good thing. But there are definitely warning signs and potential unknowns that give me enough pause to simply declare it an absolute success that will narrowly be used ONLY to "keep the internet like it is today"
 
Travis007 said:
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..
Click to expand...

Actually Title II makes it harder for local regulations to create barriers like that.

Also, the "Soros donated $200 million for net neutrality" thing is ridiculous. What actually happened is that Soros over a period of like 15 years funded several organizations like universities and the ACLU. Since the ACLU supports net neutrality, the right-wing loons at these "news" organizations counted every dollar as financing the fight for net neutrality.
 
eohrnberger said:
As if the Kos is a source of impartial and unbiased information. Please.

For all we know there could be 10 times the number of supportive posts or tweets or whatever, and the Kos would never even mention them.
Click to expand...

I love it when The Kos and other sites rely on these Facebook posts from "self-described Republicans" to declare that "conservatives rage against Ted Cruz". :lamo

I'm always a self-described Liberal on FB when I posted on Debbie Wasserman Schultz's page or my Democratic Senator's page.

Ted Cruz makes the left go absolutely nuts.
 
iliveonramen said:
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?
Click to expand...

Sounds like capitalism to me.
 
eohrnberger said:
Why **** around with something that's working?
Click to expand...

Yes. Exactly.

We already had net neutrality. It went away last year. The internet worked fine in 2013. Let's get that back.
 
jonny5 said:
Sounds like capitalism to me.
Click to expand...

Capitalism is a market that isn't free is a bad thing though, and because of a variety of factors Telecoms generally function as regional monopolies or duopolies when it comes to legitimate competitive broad band.
 
Deuce said:
"Nationalization" has specific meaning and this isn't anywhere in the same galaxy as that.
Click to expand...

In fact its rights next door. Soon you will only be able to get internet from your local government.
 
Verax said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ooh, i know this one! Because theyre racist?
 
Zyphlin said:
Capitalism is a market that isn't free is a bad thing though, and because of a variety of factors Telecoms generally function as regional monopolies or duopolies when it comes to legitimate competitive broad band.
Click to expand...

Because the consumers chose it to be so. Comcast is the biggest because they are the best. Data caps are the model because they work. When they dont work, the companies change them. Which is why your wireless plan changes 180 every few years. One day its unlimited, the next day its limited, and then its unlimited. Thats capitalism, the art of consumer/seller negotiation.
 
Deuce said:
"Nationalization" has specific meaning and this isn't anywhere in the same galaxy as that.
Click to expand...

No, there might be differences but they are few in number.
 
jonny5 said:
Because the consumers chose it to be so.
Click to expand...

Not in the least. You actually think the reason....say...Cox Cable is offered in Roanoke Virginia but FIOS or Comcast Xfinitiy isn't is because consumers "chose" that? No, the reason various cable companies have psuedo monopolies in areas is not simply due to market factors.
 
Zyphlin said:
Not in the least. You actually think the reason....say...Cox Cable is offered in Roanoke Virginia but FIOS or Comcast Xfinitiy isn't is because consumers "chose" that? No, the reason various cable companies have psuedo monopolies in areas is not simply due to market factors.
Click to expand...

That is the absolute truth - Time Warner can't walk into my area in NJ and offer me service - Comcast owns all the wires, demarcations all the way through to the network. Comcast wouldn't let Time Warner or any other providers come into their turf and offer service on their lines. The only reason FIOS can offer service is because Verizon uses it's own last mile fiber to the home and will run their own strands down streets and into neighborhoods. How these pseudo monopolies continue to exist given the Bell/AT&T divestiture in 1983 set such a precedent is beyond me. I would have thought our anti-monopoly and regulatory crazy government would jump all over that but perhaps the backroom deals and lobbyist money is just too free flowing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom