• 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

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

I've already posted two links. Its someone else's turn.
 
That's really your argument in support of the rules?

No, that was a list of possible explanations for why someone may hold a position against net neutrality, and based on your own post (#34) the first explanation would appear to apply to you. My argument in support of the internet being regulated as a title II utility is the FCC prohibiting telecom companies from prioritizing broadband speed and access based on the site the consumer wishes to visit.

Here's a question I know you'll never answer, so I'm asking it for purely symbolic reasons: Do you wish to pay your telecom more to visit different internet sites, or do you like the idea of them slowing down your access to different sites?
 
Last edited:
I've already posted two links. Its someone else's turn.

I didn't see the other link but the one I did see didn't support your position, which means you didn't even read it. And if you didn't read that one then odds are pretty good you didn't read the other.
 
Last edited:
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.

I don't know, it doesn't make much sense to me either, but there was a telecom employee here who argued against net neutrality. I don't think he was an actual shareholder.

Some people hold irrational loyalties to the companies they work for. There are Starbucks baristas who are absolutely convinced that the coffee they serve is good.
 
No, it's the argument for why YOUR against Net Neutrality.

I've already made it and supported it. I was expecting y'all to do the same. But, as usual, it's just another gang bang with insults, two-year-old threads and, "you hate Obama".
 
Ok, you explain it. Show your work.

Maybe you ought to do your own research rather than rely on others to explain things to you. That's one advantage to 'net neutrality- you have access to enough information to make your own decisions.
Or just ask others to do it for you and lead you.
 
Maybe you ought to do your own research rather than rely on others to explain things to you. That's one advantage to 'net neutrality- you have access to enough information to make your own decisions.
Or just ask others to do it for you and lead you.

I have.
 

So far all your "research" has led you to headlines you mistakenly believe supports a position you don't understand surrounding a topic you know nothing about.
 
I've already made it and supported it. I was expecting y'all to do the same.

And I gave you a link for reference, what Net Neutrality is, and why I suppport it.


But, as usual, it's just another gang bang with insults, two-year-old threads and, "you hate Obama".

What are you talking about? YOU were the one that basically admitted that the only reason you're against Net Neutrality is because Obama supported it.
 
Net Neutrality:

"The principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites."

So in other words, it removes any and all motivation for content providers to make deals with, and install high speed lines to, ISPs in order that their content would be delivered at an acceptable rate to their consumers for an acceptable consumer experience, as there's no way within these rules to have it make financial sense (imagine that, government doesn't have a clue about making financial sense. Sounds like government SOP to me).

Yeah, this really sounds like a step backwards to me.

Bandwidth is the blood and the heart of the Internet. Content and consumers demand it. The richer the content, the more bandwidth it demands, this is why HD movies with surround sound look and sound better than a VHS tape. It also demands far more storage and bandwidth.

4K TVs are already in the stores, and 4K Blue Ray DVDs are too. If the pattern repeats itself, and it likely will, the next demand will be for NetFlix and the ISPs to deliver this huge increase.

bluray-vs-dvd-4k-1.jpg


Without financial motivation to build out the required network infrastructure to support the new holographic movies and VR technologies, you'll never gona get them, and if you do, it'll be hamstrung. It'll kill innovation and investment in forward progress and further development.

Nobody likes these rules. This going to be just like obamacare...

Net Neutrality: Why Net Neutrality Isn't Worth Celebrating

Per the article above:
The new net neutrality regulations give the FCC some oversight over these agreements to determine if they’re “just and reasonable,” but that standard is so vague as to make an already complicated issue difficult to enforce. In Chairman Wheeler’s proposal, broadband providers are allowed to pretty much do whatever they want as long as they defend their actions as “reasonable network management,” which, as The Verge points out, is “a term which the ISPs have already been using to justify congestion at interconnection points.”

A couple of points here:

"standard is so vague as to make an already complicated issue difficult to enforce" - Typical of legislators and regulators that are trying to regulate and legislate something they don't have enough knowledge about.

“reasonable network management,” - could be anything, nearly any action the ISP wants to take, and justify with a barely logical and / or barely technically accurate that the regulator hearing the BS couldn't discern between fact or fiction. Squidgy rules that can be bent, twisted, contorted, and disagreements likely to end up in the courts. Boy does this sound like typical government busy bodyness yet?

Yeah...that's what I thought. You people have no idea what these new rules are going to do.

Given the vagueness of the regulations, as cited above, I don't think that anyone can predict how this is going to turn out, but my bet is on 'not well' or 'worse than if it had been left alone', which is the typical result when government sticks it's nose in most anything, and that most certainly IS the established track record.

Government, the Midas touch that turns everything to lead.
 
Last edited:
I've already posted two links. Its someone else's turn.

Yeah. I saw.
Your first link basically says "this doesn't matter much because it doesn't really change anything."
No ****, sherlock. That's the point. The article then complains that these regulations aren't going to address why our internet is slow and expensive compared to other nations.

Yeah. That's true. What, you want the government to step in with price mandates and speed mandates?

Also from your first link:

We’re better off in a world with these kinds of restrictions.

So, yeah. You first link agrees with me.

Your second link has no coherent indication of any actual harm. Just hypotheticals. "This regulation stops innovation of business models that benefit from differential bandwidth!" Listen, random guy on Forbes, the only business model benefiting from this is your cable company.

I can spam links too, if I wanted to hurl someone else's words at you.

These are simple, basic rules to keep the internet a more open platform for innovation and competition. They curb certain specific, anticompetitive behaviors. And thats all. So please stop acting like the world is going to end.
 
That's what they said about obamacare. The Kaiser Foundation said today that insurance rates are going up...again.

One thing that I believe people are overlooking is the fact that utilities and now Obamacare, are regulated by the government - "luxuries" are not. Since everyone I know uses the internet, both for personal use and for business reasons, and few people today consider it a luxury, why would the government be interested in anyone's use of the internet, and which ISP they use, enough to handpick a three-judge panel to look into it?

We had this discussion several years ago on another site I used to visit, and there was a great hue and cry that it sounded like something out of Orwell's book 1984, with the government monitoring and controlling what you're watching, and what you order online, and where you bank, and which stock broker you use, and where you travel, etc. I had forgotten all about those discussions, but here it is again! Weird!
 
Yay, for higher rates!...lol!

They should just get wifi on their phones and computer. Problem solved, cheaper rates.
 
It was long ago determined that you have no idea what net neutrality is. You also told me that if I didn't like my ISP, I could just "get wi-fi."

Ok, that cracked me up.
 
Yeah. I saw.
Your first link basically says "this doesn't matter much because it doesn't really change anything."
No ****, sherlock. That's the point. The article then complains that these regulations aren't going to address why our internet is slow and expensive compared to other nations.

Yeah. That's true. What, you want the government to step in with price mandates and speed mandates?

Also from your first link:



So, yeah. You first link agrees with me.

Your second link has no coherent indication of any actual harm. Just hypotheticals. "This regulation stops innovation of business models that benefit from differential bandwidth!" Listen, random guy on Forbes, the only business model benefiting from this is your cable company.

I can spam links too, if I wanted to hurl someone else's words at you.

These are simple, basic rules to keep the internet a more open platform for innovation and competition. They curb certain specific, anticompetitive behaviors. And thats all. So please stop acting like the world is going to end.

I think one of the big problems is the government stepping in to fix a problem that doesn't exist. But, that is just to get their foot in the door. Remember, at the beginning of this the FCC declared that they made the decision that they have the power to regulate this, all on their own. No need for the people to give them the go ahead. What will they do next? I think their next step will be to start introducing fees, little by little, on your cable bill.
 
Sadly, many Democrats really don't understand the issue. Big government and taxes are the answer to everything for them.

Yeah, your post has absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed.
 
Back
Top Bottom