• 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!

Court Backs Rules Treating Internet as Utility, Not Luxury

It's not even that hard to understand, really.

Actually, net neutrality is impossible to understand if you make certain to turn your head away every time an explanation of the subject threatens to enter your field of vision. You joined this forum in March, I see. Two years ago, I told apdst to go to the Wiki page on net neutrality so he could be passingly informed before involving himself in discussions surrounding that topic.

In those two entire years, he hasn't done so, yet here is, still taking a position.
 
You asked me to explain what Net Neutrality is. I gave you an explanation.

But if you wan't to know why net neutrality's so important, check this out:

The Open Internet: A Case for Net Neutrality

Looks like price controls to me. With government price controls, kiss quality good bye.

This is another case of, "we're going to make it suck for everyone, that way it'll be fair".

Who wants to net their sales tax with some sneaky name hidden in there?
 
Actually, net neutrality is impossible to understand if you make certain to turn your head away every time an explanation of the subject threatens to enter your field of vision. You joined this forum in March, I see. Two years ago, I told apdst to go to the Wiki page on net neutrality so he could be passingly informed before involving himself in discussions surrounding that topic.

In those two entire years, he hasn't done so, yet here is, still taking a position.

Post the rules and explain how they're good and note the safeguards that are in place to protect against government abuse.
 
Actually, net neutrality is impossible to understand if you make certain to turn your head away every time an explanation of the subject threatens to enter your field of vision. You joined this forum in March, I see. Two years ago, I told apdst to go to the Wiki page on net neutrality so he could be passingly informed before involving himself in discussions surrounding that topic.

In those two entire years, he hasn't done so, yet here is, still taking a position.

Well why is he against it anyways? I don't get it.

Net Neutrality is a good thing.
 
That's what they said about obamacare. The Kaiser Foundation said today that insurance rates are going up...again.

In regards to net neutrality is just legally protecting the status quo. How would you feel if your power company started charging you more for electricity that powers your refrigerator than what they charge for your microwave? What the regulation of a utility brings to the table is preventing the ISPs from lying to you, charging you extraneous fees, charging you ludicrous prices for going over your data cap, etc.
 
Well why is he against it anyways? I don't get it.

Net Neutrality is a good thing.

Post the rules and show us the good in them. Unless this is another case of, "Obama wants it, so it's gotta be good".
 
In regards to net neutrality is just legally protecting the status quo. How would you feel if your power company started charging you more for electricity that powers your refrigerator than what they charge for your microwave? What the regulation of a utility brings to the table is preventing the ISPs from lying to you, charging you extraneous fees, charging you ludicrous prices for going over your data cap, etc.

My internet bill is the same every month.
 
My internet bill is the same every month.

Well some people are not so lucky and are heavily impacted by the above. Without net neutrality it would certainly go up.
 
Post the rules and show us the good in them. Unless this is another case of, "Obama wants it, so it's gotta be good".

OK, now I see why you're really against Net Neutrality.
 
In your own words, what is the primary argument from that article?

How about you post something supporting your argument? Or, is there a reason why you won't?
 
Well why is he against it anyways? I don't get it.

Net Neutrality is a good thing.

It is an objectively good thing, unless

1) You hate Obama so much that you'd be willing to make your own lifestyle more inconvenient and costly in order to score a symbolic victory against him.
2) You work for a telecom company.
3) You are a shareholder for a telecom company.

Outside of those three possibilities, there is no reason to be against it.
 
How about you post something supporting your argument? Or, is there a reason why you won't?

All you posted was a link. As you don't know what net neutrality is, it's clear you only posted it because the headline appeared to support your position. Spoiler alert: it actually doesn't, because unlike you I actually read the article.
 
It is an objectively good thing, unless

1) You hate Obama so much that you'd be willing to make your own lifestyle more inconvenient and costly in order to score a symbolic victory against him.
2) You work for a telecom company.
3) You are a shareholder for a telecom company.

Outside of those three possibilities, there is no reason to be against it.

Even a rank-and-file telecom employee wouldn't benefit from a lack of NN, so No. 2 on your list really doesn't apply.
 
And I still don't see why you're for these rules. Or, did I got the nail on the head?

I am in favor of these rules because they foster innovation and competition on the internet, and are a net benefit for the consumer and the economy.

The only people against Net Neutrality are:
1) ISPs who have a direct financial incentive to end it
2) People who oppose any and all actions based solely on the fact that Obama supports it
3) Libertarians who blindly apply their ideology without regard to consequences
 
I am in favor of these rules because they foster innovation and competition on the internet, and are a net benefit for the consumer.

You can point that out in the rules?
 
It is an objectively good thing, unless

1) You hate Obama so much that you'd be willing to make your own lifestyle more inconvenient and costly in order to score a symbolic victory against him.
2) You work for a telecom company.
3) You are a shareholder for a telecom company.

Outside of those three possibilities, there is no reason to be against it.

That's really your argument in support of the rules?
 
You can point that out in the rules?

Sure. And I will do so once you point out where all the harm is going to come from.
 
Back
Top Bottom