• 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

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

Let's bet on it. Henrin too, since he "liked" your post.

Pick your timeframe. What is "soon?" We'll bet a forum donation on it, amount of your choosing.
 
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.

Precisely why oversight is required to make sure these companies don't abuse the power that comes with a monopoly on such a basic service.
 
Yes. Exactly.

We already had net neutrality. It went away last year. The internet worked fine in 2013. Let's get that back.

that's why the govt is setting up the rules. Because the ISPs don't want net neutrality you won't get it without some regulation.
 
Precisely why oversight is required to make sure these companies don't abuse the power that comes with a monopoly on such a basic service.

Who oversees the Regulators ? What happens when they overstep their authority ?

No one and nothing.

So for a percieved and imagined injustice, you support blanket intervention blindly ?

The last time the Government intervened in the private sector for the purpose of regulating " fairness and equity " we wound up with a massive housing bubble.

The people who they set out to protect were some of the first people to lose their homes.

Same with ObamaCare. Sold under the pretense of making Health Insurance " affordable " but now its driving up premiums and deductibles and hitting Middle class Americans hard.

Its always the case with progressive initiatives. Shallow and poorly thought out attempts that come with severe consequences down the road.

The problem with this administration is we KNOW they're lying. We know their real intentions have little to do with making anything " equitable ".
 
Who oversees the Regulators ? What happens when they overstep their authority ?

No one and nothing.
Voters. Elections. Don't like who is being appointed? Fire the people doing the appointing.


So for a percieved and imagined injustice, you support blanket intervention blindly ?
Again with the absolutes. Are conservatives capable of thinking in any other terms? Nobody said they support any regulation for any reason, and you are blindly opposing regulations.

The problem with this administration is we KNOW they're lying. We know their real intentions have little to do with making anything " equitable ".
Equitable isn't in the regulations being proposed, nor supported. I guess you're one of those people who still thinks net neutrality means ISPs can't offer different speed packages, or whatever nonsense you've invented.
 
Voters. Elections. Don't like who is being appointed? Fire the people doing the appointing.



Again with the absolutes. Are conservatives capable of thinking in any other terms? Nobody said they support any regulation for any reason, and you are blindly opposing regulations.


Equitable isn't in the regulations being proposed, nor supported. I guess you're one of those people who still thinks net neutrality means ISPs can't offer different speed packages, or whatever nonsense you've invented.

Voters and elections....LOL !!

Nonsense. Voters and elections don't enforce laws. The Government enforces laws and apparently ignores them when its politically beneficial.

Who enforced the laws when the IRS went around targeting innocent Americans based on their Political affiliation ? Who enforced the laws when the DOJ allowed thousands of assault weapons to walk into the waiting arms of the Mexican drug cartels ?

Who's enforcing our immigration laws as millions of illegals stream into to the US to take jobs away from Americans right in the middle of the worst " recovery " since WW II ?

And absolutes are important especially when it comes to the Government apppointing it self more power. Whats so difficult about full disclosure ?

Nothing, unless your'e trying to hide something, which is par for the course when it comes to these groups of thugs.

Wish we had absolutes back when Obama was telling eveveryone that they could keep their Dr and Insurance if they wanted to.

But all we had was lies, false narratives and plattitudes and pretense about " fairness, affordability and access ".

Now we have much higher premiums, deductibles and the Treasury department paying ObamaCares bills without Congressional oversight.

And sorry, but this whole issue has been based around the same empty narratives that the Democrats are known for. The title of this OP even has the word " discrimination " in it .
 
You do know that ISP have expenses that need to be met?? Things like payroll, hardware, software, etc.

No they don't. They are just cash revenue streams for the 1%ers. There is no maintenance to be done, no costs of employment, and certainly no pressure to be competitive. [/ sarcasm].
 
I just don't understand this argument.

15 years ago I was paying $40/mo for 1.5 Mb DSL which was a huge increase over the 56Kb dial up I'd had for $25/mo. Now I'm paying something like $60/mo for 50Mb cable.

I fail to see how any of this indicates that I'm getting screwed. While my cost has more than doubled in 15 years the service I'm getting is 100x better and more consistent. I damned sure can't say the same for the other public utilities I'm paying for. My electric bill is higher but I'm not getting better electricity. My gas bill is higher but I'm not getting better gas. My water bill is higher but that's not getting better either.

So far the only damned utility I'm paying for that has both gone up in cost and increased in quality is my relatively unregulated internet which, as of a couple of hours ago, has become highly regulated!

There are two electric companies in our area. We have Georgia Power and Habersham Electric Membership Company (a co-op). One is owned by the customers, and in fact we get a refund check once a year for overages (although probably not this year considering all the work they did the get people back up and running after a series of winter storms). The other is a state subsidized corporation. Guess which one has outstanding service?

BTW HEMC is currently installing fiberoptics for internet, phone and TV, and kicking seven shades of **** out of Windstream, the local monopoly with crap service who happens to own the existing lines.
 
Last edited:
Who oversees the Regulators ? What happens when they overstep their authority ?
We keel them ....and cut of their allowances? And..not necessarily in that order.
No one and nothing.
Congressional committees thrive on this stuff...especially the right wing ones.
So for a percieved and imagined injustice, you support blanket intervention blindly ?
NO, with weyes ide open.

The last time the Government intervened in the private sector for the purpose of regulating " fairness and equity " we wound up with a massive housing bubble.
No, no, no....it was deeee-regulation that caused mastiff bubbles in housing, u wittle revisionist u.

The people who they set out to protect were some of the first people to lose their homes.
Don't cry, Donnie Trump can shrill keep his gawdy awful McMansion(s).

Same with ObamaCare. Sold under the pretense of making Health Insurance " affordable " but now its driving up premiums and deductibles and hitting Middle class Americans hard.
Paying 4k a year for two people on group insurance sure beats paying 8k out of pocket for an individual policy that doesn't even cover emergency care. Thank you, Obama.

Its always the case with progressive initiatives. Shallow and poorly thought out attempts that come with severe consequences down the road.
ACA was a republican idea.


The problem with this administration is we KNOW they're lying. We know their real intentions have little to do with making anything " equitable ".
We KNOW that ALL administrations LIE. So what else is new?
 
The audacity with which THIS Admin lies.
 
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.

Can you please site the cases of misuse, abuse and discrimination that warrants a government take-over.

The only thing I am aware of is exponentially increasing internet speeds as costs continue to drop.
 
Last edited:
And so the internet which was once a bastion of freedom gets some more regulations to way it down and bring it under the government's control.

Imo, it is ridiculous if you think the government did this to save people money. They did it (and the other 'side' would have done it if they were in power) so they can control the internet more...one step at a time. I guarantee you the leaders of both parties HATE the freedom the internet gives the ignorant masses.
Of course, they will say the opposite in front of the cameras.
 
Can you please site the cases of misuse, abuse and discrimination that warrants a government take-over.

The only thing I am aware of is exponentially increasing internet spends as costs continue to drop.

The government is not taking over anything. What makes you think that? You been reading those partisan sites again?

If you are on the side of small businesses, then you are 100% supportive of net neutrality. Net neutrality merely reinstates what has been the case with broadband use until recently, when the telecom companies came up with a scheme to blackmail businesses. This merely gives the FCC the right to respond to complaints about mafioso tactics.

Internet costs are not dropping, except in your universe, I guess. I have paid the same amount for the same speed for years. What may have changed are the creation of fictitious high speeds that telecom companies will sell you for less per mbps than if you get, say 3 mbps. But you neither need, nor do you get, 100 mbps, in most cases. Streaming movies only needs about 6 mbps.

You may not know, but your broadband provider throttles its internet highway, except for certain businesses that have paid up to ensure its services won't be throttled. This regulation seems to put an end to the blackmail, and an end to the broadband provider deciding which services you will be able to see w/o throttling. Throttling can make a service unuseable. Netflix isn't throttled, since it pays about $100M a year to Comcast to prevent that.

My provider doesn't do that because I have the old timey dsl, which is not throttled.

Throttling is what some broadband providers do instead of updating their equipment to meet demand.
 
These things should be debated in congress and in public, not decided behind the scenes by unelected bureaucrats. Even people who like the rules should oppose the way they were arrived at and implemented.

But but but..than everything would be transparent, can't have that when they can go with the element of SURPRISE!!
 
The government is not taking over anything. What makes you think that? You been reading those partisan sites again?
Yes they are...one small step at a time. They are increasing regulation on what was once something had virtually none. This more regulation. You cannot actively regulate something without exerting some level of control over it...not possible.

If you are on the side of small businesses, then you are 100% supportive of net neutrality. Net neutrality merely reinstates what has been the case with broadband use until recently, when the telecom companies came up with a scheme to blackmail businesses. This merely gives the FCC the right to respond to complaints about mafioso tactics.

Internet costs are not dropping, except in your universe, I guess. I have paid the same amount for the same speed for years. What may have changed are the creation of fictitious high speeds that telecom companies will sell you for less per mbps than if you get, say 3 mbps. But you neither need, nor do you get, 100 mbps, in most cases. Streaming movies only needs about 6 mbps.

You may not know, but your broadband provider throttles its internet highway, except for certain businesses that have paid up to ensure its services won't be throttled. This regulation seems to put an end to the blackmail, and an end to the broadband provider deciding which services you will be able to see w/o throttling. Throttling can make a service unuseable. Netflix isn't throttled, since it pays about $100M a year to Comcast to prevent that.

My provider doesn't do that because I have the old timey dsl, which is not throttled.

Throttling is what some broadband providers do instead of updating their equipment to meet demand.

Then you either live in the middle of nowhere or you are not doing your homework. Internet speeds/total data per dollar have jumped drastically over the past 5 years or so.

Where I live, they have jumped at least 3 fold during that time...for less money. At least.


I don't care what the big boys do. If they rip people off, then smaller companies will come along and offer something better. It's called competition. But anyone that thinks that the government telling corporations how to run their businesses is a good thing has NO IDEA what they are talking about. Look at healthcare. Government was massively involved even before Obamacare and the average U.S> citizen was even then paying by far the most dollars per person on healthcare.


Competition is ALWAYS good. Government regulation is almost always bad.

This is bad, not good.

The only people that see otherwise are either big government lovers or are short sighted, imo.
 
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.

I can't find anything within my logical thinking circuits that makes me optomistic about this legislation and I am all for open and free Internet. As soo as the FED is involved, regulation and TAXES follow as footsteps follow the beach walker. I hope I'm wrong, but this CorpGOV does not work for the people.
 
I remember in the nineties when the government deregulated the "internet", it resulted in the largest proliferation of technology, information, and commerce in human history. This "net neutrality" business seems like regression, not progress.
 
Fair enough.

However, if it's a choice between the FCC and ISP's, that's like asking whether you prefer eating brown **** or green ****.

This idea that just because the FCC is behind the regulations, it must be bad is rooted in partisan politics. This isn't a left vs. right issue. The internet SHOULD be free and accessible to all, the internet is the greatest tool capitalism has ever known. The fact that ISP's want to stifle this should side you more on the FCC side.

ISP's are some of the notoriously worst companies in America. We are forced to deal with them due to lack of competition. That's why despite the fact that Comcast is universally hated, they are still in business. No one else to do business with in many areas of the country. Giving them the right to decide who pays what, whose internet gets throttled, etc is outrageous.

Many private companies are in a race to provide the entire globe with free high-speed internet. The biggest obstacle they face is government regulations. Your solution to this problem is more government regulations.
 
... 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.

Is Netflix entitled to limitless bandwidth? Is Netflix some crucial piece of infrastructure that needs to be shielded from predatory corporations?
 
Is Netflix entitled to limitless bandwidth? Is Netflix some crucial piece of infrastructure that needs to be shielded from predatory corporations?

What? No. They use a lot of bandwidth and they pay for it. You seem to be yet another person who fundamentally misunderstands net neutrality.
 
Many private companies are in a race to provide the entire globe with free high-speed internet. The biggest obstacle they face is government regulations. Your solution to this problem is more government regulations.
Ridiculous.
 
Whew! That was close. Good thing the government stepped in and saved us! Because, you know, the internet was getting to be a problem, but not anymore. Who wants to bet that we will soon need new fees and taxes added on to our bills so the government can pay for the cost of fixing the internet?
 
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.

Yes, its because thats where they sold their product and people bought it. Same reason there isnt a hardees near by.
 
Back
Top Bottom