• 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!

McCain introduces bill to block Net neutrality

Cold Highway

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
McCain's bill, the Internet Freedom Act, would block the Federal Communications Commission from making Net neutrality the law of the land. The rule preventing ISPs from slowing down certain types of content would create "onerous federal regulation," McCain argued in a written statement.
Click to expand...

McCain introduces bill to block Net neutrality | Raw Story

I orginally thought Net Neutrality was a good idea but when I read more into it, its another bill that needs to die.

McCain introduces bill to block Net neutrality | Raw Story
 
I support the opposition like a Bra on Dollie.

I don't see it being an issue of "creating jobs" and all that stuff so much as I see it as the government interceding onto something that they have no business playing with.
While it's true that looser guidelines made it possible for me to get my business going - I don't see that as being the biggest issue in this situation.

I'm so tired of government intervention and red tape complicating everything - I think the idea of "owning" or "controlling" something so vast and morphing as the internet is folly.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I support the opposition like a Bra on Dollie.

I don't see it being an issue of "creating jobs" and all that stuff so much as I see it as the government interceding onto something that they have no business playing with.
While it's true that looser guidelines made it possible for me to get my business going - I don't see that as being the biggest issue in this situation.

I'm so tired of government intervention and red tape complicating everything - I think the idea of "owning" or "controlling" something so vast and morphing as the internet is folly.
Click to expand...

"If it moves, tax it......if it keeps moving, regulate it.... if it stops moving, subsidise it.... Ronald Reagan
The internet caught Al Gore & the Gubmint by surprise....
They haven't figured out how to tax it properly, YET.......;)
 
Net Neutrality is this weird kind of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of thing. On both sides, its due to government regulation.

Without it, the various telecoms can bend you over your computer desk and have their way with you. The things that have been talked about, and actually done in some places, are horrible. Certain websites striking deals with certain providers so its faster/slower depending on what provider you're on, or you may just not be able to access it at all. Throttled bandwidth so you get a different amount of speed for viewing your email than watching youtube then playing WOW. On and on. Fundmanetally changing the way we function with the internet.

At the same time, by instituting Net Neutrality we'd be furthering government control and involvement in the internet which is in and of itself troubling as well.

The BEST answer would be to remove the restrictions on these companies of selling their stuff so that you don't have this quasi-monopoly by some cable/phone companies in many areas. However, I think its also the least likely.

So out of keeping things how it is currently, or net neutrality, I'm in the Net Neutrality camp
 
I still support net neutrality. If I pay 40 something bucks a month for 20 plus megabits a second then that is what I expect my cable company to provide no matter what site visit((unless the sites I connect to on the other end do not have have 20 megabits and or a whole **** load of traffic)
 
Zyphlin said:
The BEST answer would be to remove the restrictions on these companies of selling their stuff so that you don't have this quasi-monopoly by some cable/phone companies in many areas. However, I think its also the least likely.

So out of keeping things how it is currently, or net neutrality, I'm in the Net Neutrality camp
Click to expand...

Exactly. As long as companies have monopolies in certain areas and are not allowed to compete with one another, then unfortunately some kind of net neutrality regulation is needed.

I'd prefer, however, that they just allow companies to compete with one another on an even playing field. Dunno why they don't do that.
 
rivrrat said:
Exactly. As long as companies have monopolies in certain areas and are not allowed to compete with one another, then unfortunately some kind of net neutrality regulation is needed.

I'd prefer, however, that they just allow companies to compete with one another on an even playing field. Dunno why they don't do that.
Click to expand...

Net neutrality won't solve the monopoly problem. That is an infrastructure and ownership issue that really isn't touched.

Once again, infrastructure and ownership issues. There are still alot of places that don't have dedicated internet infrastructure built up. Especially if you live in the outskirts of any town. I live in Houston and I still know 2 people that have to use satellite for their connection because they live out of town.

Net neutrality sounds good on paper until you realize it doesn't stop companies from charging you up the rear with new fees or higher monthly rates to make up for their losses. Heck, if net neutrality passes be prepared to have your internet work like a phone. Charged per minute. Very equal....
 
Zyphlin said:
Net Neutrality is this weird kind of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of thing. On both sides, its due to government regulation.

Without it, the various telecoms can bend you over your computer desk and have their way with you. The things that have been talked about, and actually done in some places, are horrible. Certain websites striking deals with certain providers so its faster/slower depending on what provider you're on, or you may just not be able to access it at all. Throttled bandwidth so you get a different amount of speed for viewing your email than watching youtube then playing WOW. On and on. Fundmanetally changing the way we function with the internet.

At the same time, by instituting Net Neutrality we'd be furthering government control and involvement in the internet which is in and of itself troubling as well.

The BEST answer would be to remove the restrictions on these companies of selling their stuff so that you don't have this quasi-monopoly by some cable/phone companies in many areas. However, I think its also the least likely.

So out of keeping things how it is currently, or net neutrality, I'm in the Net Neutrality camp
Click to expand...

Yup, here it's commiecast that runs the show. There are maybe a couple others, but most everyone has to use Comcast. It sucks because their service is variable. In the end, I want to go the Net Neutrality route, but there has to be some dynamic which fights against monopoly.

Maybe we need zombie Ted Roosevelt.
 
Keorythe said:
Net neutrality won't solve the monopoly problem. That is an infrastructure and ownership issue that really isn't touched.

Once again, infrastructure and ownership issues. There are still alot of places that don't have dedicated internet infrastructure built up. Especially if you live in the outskirts of any town. I live in Houston and I still know 2 people that have to use satellite for their connection because they live out of town.

Net neutrality sounds good on paper until you realize it doesn't stop companies from charging you up the rear with new fees or higher monthly rates to make up for their losses. Heck, if net neutrality passes be prepared to have your internet work like a phone. Charged per minute. Very equal....
Click to expand...
I realize net neutrality doesn't address the core of the issue. But it is better than the alternative we are presented with. As I said, I'd prefer that monopolies did not exist and all companies were in fair competition with one another. That would solve the problem right there. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
 
I always thought Net Neutrality was when the government stayed out the way, no regulation and no taxes.
 
Heres what Cato thinks of the whole idea

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL8BaaiqLlw"]YouTube - Jim Harper discusses the FCC's plan to regulate the internet[/ame]
 
I am against (the government version of) Net Neutrality. I agree with Jim Harper, the internet is working well now. Even if they did cut off my youtube, porn, or Facebook, it's not the end of the world. I don't have a fundamental right to those things anyway. Also from what I have read it is a way for big corporations like, FB, YouTube, Photobucket, to essential have veryone else subsidize their bandwidth usage.

Since When is John McCain against big government power grabs?
 
Phoenix said:
I am against (the government version of) Net Neutrality. I agree with Jim Harper, the internet is working well now. Even if they did cut off my youtube, porn, or Facebook, it's not the end of the world. I don't have a fundamental right to those things anyway. Also from what I have read it is a way for big corporations like, FB, YouTube, Photobucket, to essential have veryone else subsidize their bandwidth usage.

Since When is John McCain against big government power grabs?
Click to expand...
I guess you figure the govt has more right than you, dontcha?
 
The problem with the internet is the local monopolies that prevent consumers from switching providers that screw them. Unfortunately, the infrastructure costs for providing such cables make real competition nearly impossible. Most regions can't generate enough revenue to actually have 5 competing ISP's making a profit. In short, consumer choice doesn't exist, and thus the market can't solve undesirable behavior. Using the government to prevent screwing the customer is the last ditch option. If anyone could offer a better solution, I'd take it, but at this point it is all we have got. Its a matter of picking the lesser evil, and at this point I'd chose the FCC over Comcast.
 
FINALLY, something I can agree with McCain on
 
rathi said:
The problem with the internet is the local monopolies that prevent consumers from switching providers that screw them. Unfortunately, the infrastructure costs for providing such cables make real competition nearly impossible. Most regions can't generate enough revenue to actually have 5 competing ISP's making a profit. In short, consumer choice doesn't exist, and thus the market can't solve undesirable behavior. Using the government to prevent screwing the customer is the last ditch option. If anyone could offer a better solution, I'd take it, but at this point it is all we have got. Its a matter of picking the lesser evil, and at this point I'd chose the FCC over Comcast.
Click to expand...

Not to mention our government has helped put us here. I read an artical recently that showed how many providers lobbied state governments to give them loans and tax breaks to build infrastructure and provide service. In some cases the goverment even made deals that will not allow competition in for so many years.
 
Phoenix said:
I am against (the government version of) Net Neutrality. I agree with Jim Harper, the internet is working well now.
Click to expand...

I agree, the internet is working well right now. Of course, Comcast and friends aren't about to start severe internet censoring while net neutrality legislation is in progress. That would really drive the public to support net neutrality and Comcast wouldn't want that. Right now, the major ISP's are on their best behavior pretending to be the most consumer friendly they can be.

Without some kind of net neutrality legislation I can see the internet providers really not being internet providers anymore. They'll be "online providers" or something equivalent giving you select internet coverage. Perhaps there will be basic coverage with access to 30 major websites or you can go with premium and get 100 or pay per website for some other major ones. And of course, some just won't be available at all. Comcast would certainly prefer you watch cable rather than internet video.

Basically, the internet would cease to exist and we would have "online providers" ala AOL of the early 90's.
 
Baralis said:
Not to mention our government has helped put us here. I read an artical recently that showed how many providers lobbied state governments to give them loans and tax breaks to build infrastructure and provide service. In some cases the goverment even made deals that will not allow competition in for so many years.
Click to expand...

You might enjoy this article

Yankee Welfare - Reason Magazine
 
We have a perfect example of the "government progression" right now. The Big Exec pay limiting going on. First it's we are going to limit the pay of the bail out companies. Everyone (mostly) rallies around this idea because either they are "Fat Cats" that caused this mess, They are rich so the Libs hate them :)2razz: this means joke okay don't attack me..) or they were stupid to take the money and it serves them right. Then almost immediately they progress to "We need to look at limiting the pay for all institutions that could affect the economy".

Now, GOVCO currently claims "Net Neutrality" as providing an equal playing field.

How long before a tax has to be levied to provide for the staff to maintain this "level playing field"?

Then how are they going to enforce this "level playing field"? Surely monitoring will be needed, just to make sure everyone is complying.

Then how long before it's determined that the downloading of illegal music really uses up too much bandwidth for illicit purposes so any file with the MP3 extension (or equivalent) has to be blocked? Except from "approved" sources like big corporate I-Tunes, M$, Wally World. I mean it's just to protect the law abiding citizen you know.

Then how long till we need a whole new Cabinet and law enforcement division to deal with these things? (With the associated tax of course)

Nah. I don't like it one bit.
 
Last edited:
The internet was created on a level playing field. That is the point of the internet, you have the same bandwidth and tools as the big guys to say what you want, when you want it. Net Neutrality is just protecting that freedom, it's protecting the ideals of the internet.

This is the good kind of regulation. The regulation to ensure our freedoms, and the ideals that the internet stands for.
 
Baralis said:
I read an artical recently that showed how many providers lobbied state governments to give them loans and tax breaks to build infrastructure and provide service.
Click to expand...
chevydriver1123 said:
You might enjoy this article

Yankee Welfare - Reason Magazine
Click to expand...
Happens all the time. It's called corporate welfare.

Funny you don't see all the railing against it like you do concerning welfare for the poor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom