• 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 set to back Internet traffic rules

Deuce said:
So we're just ignoring the part where I said I hope the ruling gets overturned, then.
Click to expand...


My apologies if I missed that part. I don't want to misrepresent you.

How does one argue against a position that somehow manages to perceive the opposite of reality?
Click to expand...

Do you often project those that disagree with you and displaying a lack of reality?


Net neutrality protects your freedom of choice and freedom of speech. Period.
Click to expand...


That seems rather absolute, you'll forgive me if I remain skeptical?


If that's your idea of "big government," then I suppose I favor big government.
Click to expand...


The aspects of this are up for debate, and where they should be debated is in the congress. My idea of "Big Government" is when a regulatory body like the FCC doesn't like that the congress is not acting, and has been rebuffed by the courts, goes through with a ruling anyway. That may not be "Big Government" but it is authoritarian.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
My apologies if I missed that part. I don't want to misrepresent you.
Click to expand...
You said it would probably be overturned, and I said "I should ****ing hope so."

Do you often project those that disagree with you and displaying a lack of reality?
Click to expand...
Many conservatives, due to the things they're being told by Beck/Limbaugh, think that Net Neutrality is a bad thing. That it is some sort of internet version of radio equality deal. It's not. They think Net Neutrality is somehow designed to push liberal views over conservative views. That's not how it works. That view is the polar opposite of reality. It's not my projection or my opinion, it's reality. Up is down. Black is white.

That seems rather absolute, you'll forgive me if I remain skeptical?
Click to expand...
You can remain skeptical if you like, but Net Neutrality is really simple. Net Neutrality means that data is data. Essentially, the ISPs are required to be blind. 10GB from NetFlix is the same as 10GB from FoxNews.com or 10GB from scatporntorrents.com.

The aspects of this are up for debate, and where they should be debated is in the congress. My idea of "Big Government" is when a regulatory body like the FCC doesn't like that the congress is not acting, and has been rebuffed by the courts, goes through with a ruling anyway. That may not be "Big Government" but it is authoritarian.
Click to expand...

The FCC's ruling does not actually create Net Neutrality. (the opposite, really) Maybe that's where you're drawing the confusion. Net Neutrality is anti-authoritarian, as it would ensure that no entity, private or public, could treat data from msnbc.com any differently than it treats data from foxnews.com. No entity could charge you more for data from foxnews.com than from msnbc.com. The FCC's ruling really does exactly the opposite. Your ISP can now charge you an extra fee to get data from foxnews.com and not charge you that fee for msnbc.com, with the express intent of funneling subcribers towards msnbc.com instead of foxnews.com. Net Neutrality would have prevented this.

There is a de-facto monopoly on that last-mile piece of cable that delivers internet data to your home. That cable was largely paid for with your money. Taxpayers funded this infrastructure. We paid tax dollars to fund all these highways we have around, imagine if those same construction companies could arbitrarily plant a toll booth on your driveway. You paid for them to build that residential street, and now they have the ability to selectively charge an extra fee to anyone going in and out of your driveway. They like Toyota, so Toyota vehicles get a pass. You like GM cars? Parking fee $10.99/month. It's your goddamned driveway, they're your goddamned roads, but the FCC has given this power to ISPs, who, by the way, have a government-sanctioned monopoly in most markets.

The worst part is, it's not you, the subscriber, who is really going to shoulder the burden. It's the little guy with his little website who can't afford to pay off a multibillion dollar ISP that is really going to suffer. The internet small business man is going to be stuck with 56k speeds for his website. Bestbuy.com can pay off the ISPs for access to the fast lane. Can Joe's Web Shop?
 
Last edited:
theangryamerican said:
Thanks to Zyphlin for the explanation. This is getting ridiculous. The cost of my internet has already gone up $40 a month in the past 3 years (Nothing about the service has changed except for the amount I pay for it) I'm really starting to wish there was some way for me to kick Comcast to the curb and still get my internet fix.

I'm almost to the point where I would rather the service providers just open everyone up to the highest practical speed and charge us strictly for use, like the water or electrical company does. I'm tired of being told your monthly cost will be X and then receiving a bill for x plus y and z random fees.
Click to expand...

You can go with satellite.
 
Has no one mentioned the other big nasty thing the FCC move will create?

Metered Internet. I.E. back to the bad old days of charge by the byte (or in our case GB but still).

Hopefully between the GOP and the Courts we can quash this bugger right fast.
 
American said:
You can go with satellite.
Click to expand...

Not nearly as reliable, far slower speeds than traditional forms of broadband, horrible latency, and still not available in all areas so its not really an answer. In my former apartment building, based on the location I was at, my options was Cox...Cox...and Cox
 
Deuce said:
Many conservatives, due to the things they're being told by Beck/Limbaugh, think that Net Neutrality is a bad thing. That it is some sort of internet version of radio equality deal. It's not. They think Net Neutrality is somehow designed to push liberal views over conservative views. That's not how it works. That view is the polar opposite of reality. It's not my projection or my opinion, it's reality. Up is down. Black is white.
Click to expand...


Could we please stop with the ad hominem attack that conservatives are too stupid to make up their own minds about anything? There is opinion out there, and liberals don't have a lock on what is the truth of the matter, so you can just cut that **** out right now.


You can remain skeptical if you like, but Net Neutrality is really simple. Net Neutrality means that data is data. Essentially, the ISPs are required to be blind. 10GB from NetFlix is the same as 10GB from FoxNews.com or 10GB from scatporntorrents.com.
Click to expand...

Is that a problem now? Because I don't see anyone coming forth with proof that this is indeed an ongoing problem that needed to be corrected immediately.


The FCC's ruling does not actually create Net Neutrality. (the opposite, really) Maybe that's where you're drawing the confusion. Net Neutrality is anti-authoritarian, as it would ensure that no entity, private or public, could treat data from msnbc.com any differently than it treats data from foxnews.com. No entity could charge you more for data from foxnews.com than from msnbc.com. The FCC's ruling really does exactly the opposite. Your ISP can now charge you an extra fee to get data from foxnews.com and not charge you that fee for msnbc.com, with the express intent of funneling subcribers towards msnbc.com instead of foxnews.com. Net Neutrality would have prevented this.
Click to expand...

Again, could you provide proof that this is an ongoing problem right now that mandated the FCC to side step the constitutional method of congress, and making law themselves through regulation?


There is a de-facto monopoly on that last-mile piece of cable that delivers internet data to your home. That cable was largely paid for with your money. Taxpayers funded this infrastructure. We paid tax dollars to fund all these highways we have around, imagine if those same construction companies could arbitrarily plant a toll booth on your driveway. You paid for them to build that residential street, and now they have the ability to selectively charge an extra fee to anyone going in and out of your driveway. They like Toyota, so Toyota vehicles get a pass. You like GM cars? Parking fee $10.99/month. It's your goddamned driveway, they're your goddamned roads, but the FCC has given this power to ISPs, who, by the way, have a government-sanctioned monopoly in most markets.
Click to expand...

You are basing a lot of this on could be's and might happens....I don't see where this is happening now.

The worst part is, it's not you, the subscriber, who is really going to shoulder the burden. It's the little guy with his little website who can't afford to pay off a multibillion dollar ISP that is really going to suffer. The internet small business man is going to be stuck with 56k speeds for his website. Bestbuy.com can pay off the ISPs for access to the fast lane. Can Joe's Web Shop?
Click to expand...

Again....Gheeze....Does this happen now?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Is that a problem now? Because I don't see anyone coming forth with proof that this is indeed an ongoing problem that needed to be corrected immediately.
Click to expand...

Numerous things in this thread have shown that it is starting to become a problem. Companies have hindered bandwidth for competitor services to bolster their own. Companies have already begun to attempt to charge netflix additional money for the data they use compared to other services. Companies have made statements to their desire for such things and businesses are already building software that allows for it.

If I remember right you were one of those screaming about Obama care and what it could lead to, what it could set up and cause down the line, etc. People would go on and on about "knowing these people" and what their end goal is based on history and what they've said.

Hell, even in this...peoples argument AGAINST net neutrality is that they know the government and know they'll just use it for censorship in the end.

And yet you demand proof of it happening at its worst right this absolute moment or you refuse to believe the issues that people bring up when pushing for net neutrality?

The telecoms have shown, repeatedly, through action and words what their intent is.

Again, could you provide proof that this is an ongoing problem right now that mandated the FCC to side step the constitutional method of congress, and making law themselves through regulation?
Click to expand...

Its not an ongoing problem, its a growing problem that needs to be acted upon prior to the point where it has became prevalent. It is far more difficult, and far more damaging, to try to stop something when its in full go rather then when its just ramping up.

I highly dislike the FCC making this ruling...I also dislike the ruling, as do MANY on the net neutrlaity side. But it is possible to dislike the idea of the FCC making something happen while at the same time agreeing with the principle of WHAT is happening.

This is not an issue of messing with a "free market" because we do not have a free market currently with telecoms, we have pseudo-monopolies created by the government. The options are either net neutrality or breaking up those monopolies to assure that the internet, as we know it to function, remains in tact. Out of those two options, one is difficult and one is going to be near impossible to make happen.
 
Zyphlin said:
Numerous things in this thread have shown that it is starting to become a problem. Companies have hindered bandwidth for competitor services to bolster their own. Companies have already begun to attempt to charge netflix additional money for the data they use compared to other services. Companies have made statements to their desire for such things and businesses are already building software that allows for it.

If I remember right you were one of those screaming about Obama care and what it could lead to, what it could set up and cause down the line, etc. People would go on and on about "knowing these people" and what their end goal is based on history and what they've said.

Hell, even in this...peoples argument AGAINST net neutrality is that they know the government and know they'll just use it for censorship in the end.

And yet you demand proof of it happening at its worst right this absolute moment or you refuse to believe the issues that people bring up when pushing for net neutrality?

The telecoms have shown, repeatedly, through action and words what their intent is.
Click to expand...


So that is what America is becoming now? We go after business we don't like based on a pre emptive mindset of supposed protection? Or is it that we just go after business we don't like?


Its not an ongoing problem, its a growing problem that needs to be acted upon prior to the point where it has became prevalent. It is far more difficult, and far more damaging, to try to stop something when its in full go rather then when its just ramping up.
Click to expand...


Why'd the court disagree with you then?


I highly dislike the FCC making this ruling...I also dislike the ruling, as do MANY on the net neutrlaity side. But it is possible to dislike the idea of the FCC making something happen while at the same time agreeing with the principle of WHAT is happening.
Click to expand...

Then the way to do that is to pressure congress to do it. NOT as we have seen lately through regulatory bodies taking it upon themselves to hamfistedly go after political foes of the administration.

This is not an issue of messing with a "free market" because we do not have a free market currently with telecoms, we have pseudo-monopolies created by the government. The options are either net neutrality or breaking up those monopolies to assure that the internet, as we know it to function, remains in tact. Out of those two options, one is difficult and one is going to be near impossible to make happen.
Click to expand...


Oh, do tell what this ruling will do to break up Comcast, or Charter?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
So that is what America is becoming now? We go after business we don't like based on a pre emptive mindset of supposed protection? Or is it that we just go after business we don't like?
Click to expand...

America has gone after businesses that have monopolies in attempts to protect the consumer many times in its history. Sorry, but I deal with reality. Reality is that yes, the government got us into this mess by creating the quasi-monopolies that exist now in telecoms. Which means its NOT a free market, and which means those businesses aren't opperating in the normal type of sector that I would say government shouldn't be sticking its nose in as much. They are functioning on tax payer funded backbones, with government backed monopolies.

Why'd the court disagree with you then?
Click to expand...

Ah, so J-Mac supports all court decisions now yes? Glad to know you're suddenly pro Roe v. Wade

Then the way to do that is to pressure congress to do it. NOT as we have seen lately through regulatory bodies taking it upon themselves to hamfistedly go after political foes of the administration.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and pressuing congress is the main way I'd personally like to see it done. I'd much rather the FCC NOT have their hands involved in it. That being said, the FCC doing this kind of thing doesn't really set a gigantic new precedent...the FCC does this kind of crap and is already involved with internet communications anyways. And unlike the Health Care Debate...where "Do nothing" was a better option than do Obama Care but worse than doing what many republicans suggested...in this case "Do Nothing" is a worse option than the FCC creating net neutrality but the FCC creating it isn't as good as congress creating it.

However, none of that happened. what the FCC passed was worthless and harmful and was worse than doing nothing because it basically was a smoke and mirrors act. I don't like what the FCC did, nor how the FCC did it, but their action doesn't make net neutrality as an ideal and a goal a bad or wrong thing.

Oh, do tell what this ruling will do to break up Comcast, or Charter?
Click to expand...

Nothing, because as I elluded too, it is a neigh impossability that people on either side of the aisle are going to seriously and legitimately attempt to break up the telecom monopolies. I've stated numerous times on this forum that it would be my primary preference...but its kind of like saying winning the lottery would be my primary preference for earning money in the next 10 years. All well and good to say, but then you have to deal with reality.
 
Zyphlin said:
America has gone after businesses that have monopolies in attempts to protect the consumer many times in its history. Sorry, but I deal with reality. Reality is that yes, the government got us into this mess by creating the quasi-monopolies that exist now in telecoms. Which means its NOT a free market, and which means those businesses aren't opperating in the normal type of sector that I would say government shouldn't be sticking its nose in as much. They are functioning on tax payer funded backbones, with government backed monopolies.



Ah, so J-Mac supports all court decisions now yes? Glad to know you're suddenly pro Roe v. Wade



Indeed, and pressuing congress is the main way I'd personally like to see it done. I'd much rather the FCC NOT have their hands involved in it. That being said, the FCC doing this kind of thing doesn't really set a gigantic new precedent...the FCC does this kind of crap and is already involved with internet communications anyways. And unlike the Health Care Debate...where "Do nothing" was a better option than do Obama Care but worse than doing what many republicans suggested...in this case "Do Nothing" is a worse option than the FCC creating net neutrality but the FCC creating it isn't as good as congress creating it.

However, none of that happened. what the FCC passed was worthless and harmful and was worse than doing nothing because it basically was a smoke and mirrors act. I don't like what the FCC did, nor how the FCC did it, but their action doesn't make net neutrality as an ideal and a goal a bad or wrong thing.



Nothing, because as I elluded too, it is a neigh impossability that people on either side of the aisle are going to seriously and legitimately attempt to break up the telecom monopolies. I've stated numerous times on this forum that it would be my primary preference...but its kind of like saying winning the lottery would be my primary preference for earning money in the next 10 years. All well and good to say, but then you have to deal with reality.
Click to expand...

What about the property rights of the ISP's to protect their interests?
 
MrVicchio said:
What about the property rights of the ISP's to protect their interests?
Click to expand...

Property that taxpayers paid for and a business that the government handed them a monopoly in?
 
j-mac said:
Is that a problem now? Because I don't see anyone coming forth with proof that this is indeed an ongoing problem that needed to be corrected immediately.

Again, could you provide proof that this is an ongoing problem right now that mandated the FCC to side step the constitutional method of congress, and making law themselves through regulation?

You are basing a lot of this on could be's and might happens....I don't see where this is happening now.



Again....Gheeze....Does this happen now?


j-mac
Click to expand...

It wasn't a problem until now because the recent FCC ruling is what gives them the right to do this. The FCC has just created the problem, not fixed it.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
It wasn't a problem until now because the recent FCC ruling is what gives them the right to do this. The FCC has just created the problem, not fixed it.
Click to expand...


Now I am really confused.


j-mac
 
Deuce said:
Property that taxpayers paid for and a business that the government handed them a monopoly in?
Click to expand...

Was part of the deal restrictions on their use? You can't use that after the fact.
 
MrVicchio said:
What about the property rights of the ISP's to protect their interests?
Click to expand...

The ISP's such as Comcast, Cox, etc? Who use the infastructure that was federally subsidized by tax payer dollars? Who exist as pseudo-monopolies due to government regulations?

No, sorry, their property rights are less important than those of companies that are functioning in a truer free market and a truer private sector than the telecoms.
 
Barbbtx said:
Don't feel lonely. I've been confused from the start. However, I know that when government gets involved, it's usually a bad thing.

Americans Don't Want the FCC to Regulate the Internet [STATS] - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...


I agree. And from your article I think we can all agree on the ending paragraph....


Excessive government regulation can stifle innovation, but a lack of intervention could turn the Internet into a wild west where Comcast, Verizon and other ISPs create fast tracks for some content while making it impossible for Internet users to access other websites. We need to find the right balance of net neutrality regulation that keeps the web open but doesn't restrict the impressive innovations that have contributed to the rise of Facebook, Google and thousands of web startups.
Click to expand...


With that said, I guess the question is do we trust the FCC as it is made up now to do this?


j-mac
 
Can't we just leave the internet alone? If I pay for internet access, I should be able to access all of the internet, not just the websites the provider says I can access.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom