• 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!

Net Neutrality Goes Into Effect

We already have higher prices, stifled innovation, govt-subsidized monopolies (i. e. Comcast).

Comcast has at least 6 competitors in my market. They deliver the fastest internet at a reasonable price. And once the govt becomes a competitor, they will operate on 100% subsidies.
 
Cable Companies didn't build the internet.

Yeah they did. Look at the name on the truck laying cables across the country. The name on the building where all the servers, routers, and switches are. Cable companies spend hundreds of billions a year building and maintaining the internet.
 
Your statement was

"Net Neutrality means no discrimination, and it protects Internet users' ability to do or download whatever they want online without interference from the phone or cable company."

And Id like to know where that ability would be if it wasnt for the phone company or the cable company providing them the internet in the first place. It certainly wasnt the internet user who developed the system, and invested trillions in setting it up.

Users are paying for their service, and collectively they do invest huge money. But I do think I get your point.
 
Much like the FCC attempted to control speech on the radio with the fairness doctrine. The govt decides what 'lawful content' is, what is fair, and then sets about regulating everything else into the ground.

So you don't know how it will work. Lawful doesn't have a thing to do with "fair" and if the leftie government decides that right wing views are "UNlawful" then they won't need no stinkin' FCC or net neutrality rules, they'll have rounded up all you right wingers into FEMA camps!
 
Yeah they did. Look at the name on the truck laying cables across the country. The name on the building where all the servers, routers, and switches are. Cable companies spend hundreds of billions a year building and maintaining the internet.

No, you have a massive misunderstanding of how the internet works. Cable Companies only lay coaxial line which just creates a glorified LAN (Local Area Network) which connects you to the internet. It's Telecom companies that lay the backbone, the Fiber Optics lines which allows massive amounts of data. Also there is only a few select cities in which are "hubs".. think Chicago, LA, New York. So do a traceroute and you will find your ISP (cable) only connects you to the internet, it doesn't get you where you want to go. If you are getting your internet from Cable you are limited in your band to about 400/20. If your getting your service from a telecom such as AT&T and Verizon FiOS you can get 1gig easily.

US internet backbone is the NSFNET which was a PUBLIC/PRIVATE partnership which in 1989 was final open to the public.
 
Yeah they did. Look at the name on the truck laying cables across the country. The name on the building where all the servers, routers, and switches are. Cable companies spend hundreds of billions a year building and maintaining the internet.

You know taxpayers funded quite a bit of that, right?

Also, you are sadly mistaken about the nature of the internet. Cable companies are just the visible, "last mile" delivery system. There's a whole different backbone that they didn't build.
 
Yeah they did. Look at the name on the truck laying cables across the country. The name on the building where all the servers, routers, and switches are. Cable companies spend hundreds of billions a year building and maintaining the internet.

That's like saying "McDonalds in on hamburger wrappers, therefore McDonalds makes cows."
 
You know taxpayers funded quite a bit of that, right?

He doesn't know that. Conservatives don't understand the concept of rent seeking.
 
Comcast has at least 6 competitors in my market.

Yes, we know. DSL, DSL, DSL, DSL, DSL, satellite.

FYI, DSL line bandwidth is determined by the distance between your home and the DSLAM--so it doesn't matter who your ISP is--they'll all equally suck.

They deliver the fastest internet at a reasonable price.

yellow-lol-smiley-emoticon.gif


Here's how terrible U.S. broadband service really is

Why is American internet so slow?

And once the govt becomes a competitor, they will operate on 100% subsidies.

Govts. are already providing billion$ in subsidies to Comcast--giving it a market advantage over its local competitors it wouldn't otherwise have, at the expense of taxpayers--and further shielding them from local competition. . .

Big ISPs dwell in tax-break heaven, according to corporate tax study | Ars Technica

How big telecom smothers city-run broadband | Center for Public Integrity

Comcast is donating to campaign against Seattle mayor who brought gigabit internet to the city | The Verge
 
Like a good american, Im highly suspicious of giving govt power.
 
so now that ISP's can't charge heavy bandwith services a fee, who is going to pay for infrastructure upgrades to maintain a workable internet? as **** like streaming becomes more ubiquitous, bandwith needs will skyrocket. this of course will require infrastructure,


Now you and I will pay it. HOOORAY!
 
Cable Companies are the telecom companies. Its all the same thing. Furthermore, as you say, the backbone was a partnership, with private money, corporations providing the majority of the funds, technology and labor. The NSF did the paperwork. And this was all back in the early 90s. The current backbone which we use was built and run by telecoms/cablecoms.
 
You know taxpayers funded quite a bit of that, right?

Also, you are sadly mistaken about the nature of the internet. Cable companies are just the visible, "last mile" delivery system. There's a whole different backbone that they didn't build.

Quite a little bit. Far outshadowed by what the companies have spent.
 
Yes, we know. DSL, DSL, DSL, DSL, DSL, satellite.

FYI, DSL line bandwidth is determined by the distance between your home and the DSLAM--so it doesn't matter who your ISP is--they'll all equally suck.



yellow-lol-smiley-emoticon.gif


Here's how terrible U.S. broadband service really is

Why is American internet so slow?



Govts. are already providing billion$ in subsidies to Comcast--giving it a market advantage over its local competitors it wouldn't otherwise have, at the expense of taxpayers--and further shielding them from local competition. . .

Big ISPs dwell in tax-break heaven, according to corporate tax study | Ars Technica

How big telecom smothers city-run broadband | Center for Public Integrity

Comcast is donating to campaign against Seattle mayor who brought gigabit internet to the city | The Verge

Comcast PAYS billions in taxes. They are subsidizing the govt.
 
so now that ISP's can't charge heavy bandwith services a fee, who is going to pay for infrastructure upgrades to maintain a workable internet? as **** like streaming becomes more ubiquitous, bandwith needs will skyrocket. this of course will require infrastructure,


Now you and I will pay it. HOOORAY!

They can still charge. They just cant charge some people more for specialized usage. Like version tried to do with netflix I think it was. They developed a special onramp with faster access for their users. And the govt struck it down.
 
They can still charge. They just cant charge some people more for specialized usage. Like version tried to do with netflix I think it was. They developed a special onramp with faster access for their users. And the govt struck it down.



The netflix comcast fiasco, actually had to do with peers. nothing to do with net neutrality, though the media ran with it.
 
Cable Companies are the telecom companies. Its all the same thing. Furthermore, as you say, the backbone was a partnership, with private money, corporations providing the majority of the funds, technology and labor. The NSF did the paperwork. And this was all back in the early 90s. The current backbone which we use was built and run by telecoms/cablecoms.

Cable Companies aren't telecom. Nowhere close. Telecoms like AT&T and Verizon laid the modern era backbone. AT&T was split up by the Government.. and ironically Verizon was formerly part of AT&T. As a Libertarian I am all for competition. But don't mistake your choices with competition. They all use the same line and many of them use each other lines in quid pro quo. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But the problem is the fact that we have a backbone that can support 50/5 for everybody in the US but Cable Companies drag their feet in upgrading.
 
The netflix comcast fiasco, actually had to do with peers. nothing to do with net neutrality, though the media ran with it.

That is true. AT&T and Cogent always has screwed me as a Time Warner customer.
 
Net neutrality also prevents these ISP companies removing a lot of the competition for financial gain... dominance. It has a lot of beneficial implications for start up businesses and the consumer...

For example they cannot do a secret pact to ensure that they are the only ISP's available to the market. Throttling can be used in VERY financial ways...
 
Last edited:
The people who think the Internet market is a free market now are kidding themselves. When Comcast and TW wanted to merge a point Comcast made to allow the merger was that 'Comcast and TW really don't compete now'..

How is that possible? How does the #1 and #2 Cable companies NOT compete against either other? There's only 1 way, collusion. They've carved up the country and the neighborhoods so they don't to compete against each other. Which allows them to keep it's customers service crappy while raising prices. And it allows them to drag their feet on offering good, inexpensive internet service. Without the government stepping in things would only get worse.

Free market my ass.
 
Comcast PAYS billions in taxes. They are subsidizing the govt.

Uh, no.

MATH 101--if you get more than what you pay out, then you are getting welfare, not giving it.

Comcast's NET federal benefit = the total additional profits made from the ability to obtain a near-monopoly of the industry as a result of the subsidies and competition-shielding legislation (which were not available to local broadband competitors) - the total federal taxes it pays > 0.

So Comcast is a welfare bum .

In a free market, it is illegal for any govt. to provide special benefits (subsidies, competition shields, etc.) to any business.
 
It all boils down to a basic Libertarian principle--if you own it, you must control it.

Had Comcast become what it is today solely through the fruits of its own labor, receiving no special tax/legal benefits that were not available to any of its competitors, then any form of federal regulation of it (i. e. Net Neutrality) would be inappropriate.

But since taxpayers subsidized Comcast and paid for the enforcement of laws banning competitors (i. e. local municipalities) from entering the market, they (we) have a right to determine how it can run its business.

THE END.
 
Cable Companies aren't telecom. Nowhere close. Telecoms like AT&T and Verizon laid the modern era backbone. AT&T was split up by the Government.. and ironically Verizon was formerly part of AT&T. As a Libertarian I am all for competition. But don't mistake your choices with competition. They all use the same line and many of them use each other lines in quid pro quo. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But the problem is the fact that we have a backbone that can support 50/5 for everybody in the US but Cable Companies drag their feet in upgrading.

Youre stuck in the weeds. Theyre all media companies. Doesnt matter whether the cable has 4 wires or 8.
 
Back
Top Bottom