• 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!

Verizon v. FCC (Net Neutrality/ Internet Openness)

What are your initial thoughts on the Verizon v. FCC decision?

  • I agree with the decision, but there will be no negative impact.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I agree with the decision, but think it will have a negative impact.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I disagree with the decision, but don't think there'll be a negative impact.

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • I disagree with the decision, but do think it will have a negative impact.

    Votes: 14 93.3%

  • I have dial-up internet and don't care either way.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
Gaius46 said:
I agree with you that you're paying for a pipe and the ISP should not be able to impinge on your ability to access whatever content you want. And I don't expect that that's going to happen because, honestly, the FCC retains significant (and unwarranted in my view but that's another story) regulatory power over the Internet.
Í honestly don't expect that will happen.
Click to expand...
The new court ruling ensures the FCC can't stop my ISP from slowing down my Netflix, Hulu, and other feeds - that's what net neutrality was doing and that's been overturned.

Gaius46 said:
Costs may go up because frankly under the current scheme big content providers like Netflix and Google get a free ride.
Click to expand...
What "free ride"? I'm paying my ISP for that access just as it should be. If my ISP doesn't like it then they should change their rate structure to compensate or adopt the Netflix business model and provide custom streaming instead of fixed programming. They just don't want to come into the 21st century, that's all. This is a perfect example of near monopolies - actual monopolies in many cases - using their market position to screw people over.
 
Gaius46 said:
Frankly that's not going to happen. I've spent some time reading up on this and have come to the conclusion that the FCC actually won. The court struck down the FCC regulation of broadband as a common carriage because the FCC itself and the courts have determined that broadband providers are not common carriers. Thus the FCC didn't have the legal authority to put those rules in effect using it's common carriage authority.

However the court also ruled that the FCC can regulate broadband providers under something called "Section 706", which Judge Silberman in his partial dissent noted essentially gave the FCC unlimited regulatory authority over broadband providers. There is nothing to stop the FCC from enforcing those rules by bringing suit against ISPs for what it considers anti-competitive practices.

So all the net neutrality fans got what they wanted afterall. And then some. The "open and free" Internet is apparently subject to the whim of the FCC.
Click to expand...
I hope you're right about that but I seriously doubt it. The bloggers at ZDNet don't seem to share your opinion.
 
MoSurveyor said:
The new court ruling ensures the FCC can't stop my ISP from slowing down my Netflix, Hulu, and other feeds - that's what net neutrality was doing and that's been overturned.

What "free ride"? I'm paying my ISP for that access just as it should be. If my ISP doesn't like it then they should change their rate structure to compensate or adopt the Netflix business model and provide custom streaming instead of fixed programming. They just don't want to come into the 21st century, that's all. This is a perfect example of near monopolies - actual monopolies in many cases - using their market position to screw people over.
Click to expand...

Read the ruling. The FCC can't promulgate net neutrality rules under it's common carriage authority. It can still regulate regulate them under Section 706 which gives the FCC the ability to regulate broadband providers in the interest of fostering broadband deployment. Here are links that you may find interesting

Calm down. The courts didn’t just end the open Internet.

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2014/0...ontrol of the Web | Wired Opinion | Wired.com

and a link to the decision itself if you care to read Judge Silberman's dissent where he specifically notes that the FCC still has virtually unlimited regulatory authority over ISPs.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/intern...000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf#page=64/]



I didn't say you get a free ride. I said Netflix does. They pay for their dedicated connections to the Internet. They do not pay for the bandwidth they use on every other network their packets traverse enroute to your PC. Nor do you btw.
 
Last edited:
Gaius46 said:
I didn't say you get a free ride. I said Netflix does. They pay for their dedicated connections to the Internet. They do not pay for the bandwidth they use on every other network their packets traverse enroute to your PC.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean I was getting a free ride, though I can see how you might interpret my post that way. I meant Netflix, just like every other content provider out there whether it's YouTube, the WSJ, or DebatePolitics, shouldn't be paying extra for their content to be accessed. They're already paying to get that content on the Net. The end user is who pays (and should be paying) for the content they access - you and I do it every month when we pay our ISP bill. If my ISP provider wants more money for that access then they should change their rate structure. If they can't compete then they're obviously not being as efficient as the other company that's taking their business ... and that's the way it should be. ISPs are there to provide access, not regulate what I'm accessing. They shouldn't have any say on whether I'm watching YouTube, Netflix, or p0rn. It's none of their business as long as they're getting paid for my access bandwidth and monthly download amount.


Gaius46 said:
Nor do you btw.
Click to expand...
Someone's paying for it somewhere along the line. Who do you think it is?
 
Last edited:
Gaius46 said:
I didn't say you get a free ride. I said Netflix does. They pay for their dedicated connections to the Internet. They do not pay for the bandwidth they use on every other network their packets traverse enroute to your PC. Nor do you btw.
Click to expand...

Uhh, yes they do pay that and so do I. Just who do you think pays for it?
 
Deuce said:
Uhh, yes they do pay that and so do I. Just who do you think pays for it?
Click to expand...

How? You don't get a bill from every service provider out there that your network traffic happens to run over do you? I know I don't.

I don't know. My guess is either the owners of the network swallow the cost and roll it into the charges to their users or there are some ISP-ISP agreements to apportion those costs.
 
Gaius46 said:
How? You don't get a bill from every service provider out there that your network traffic happens to run over do you? I know I don't.

I don't know. My guess is either the owners of the network swallow the cost and roll it into the charges to their users or there are some ISP-ISP agreements to apportion those costs.
Click to expand...
And those costs end up back in the hands of the customers. Doesn't matter whether the people in CA pays for part of my access to UC Berkeley and I pay for part their access to Sprint HQ - it's still us consumers paying the costs.


PS
In actuality I suspect there are only a few actual networks out there and the ISP's buy service from them.
 
Gaius46 said:
How? You don't get a bill from every service provider out there that your network traffic happens to run over do you? I know I don't.

I don't know. My guess is either the owners of the network swallow the cost and roll it into the charges to their users or there are some ISP-ISP agreements to apportion those costs.
Click to expand...

:facepalm:
 
lizzie said:
Mostly political. I don't think it would have much effect overall, but gives the government more of a foot in the door on regulating information and content.
Click to expand...

If a company wants to remain free of public intervention into its private business model(s), it must pay for all the resources it uses to conduct its business.

If, OTOH, others pay for some of those resources (i. e. the land through which those cables run), then those others have a right to dictate terms to the business that use those resources.

LIBERTARIAN MOTTO: you have to own it to control it.
 
Starbuck said:
Naturally, larger content providers (i.e. netflix/ Facebook) being what they are, will in turn shift those costs back to consumers. . . in an attempt to protect their high profit margins. Mathematically, I'm pretty sure that the consumers will loose either way in this. Profit aside, what of the content providers who can't afford to pay for the infrastructure costs. What about the lone blogger or the tiny newspaper service, who will not be able to afford the new costs? Traditionally the internet has provided a voice for those without much in the way of means, it's actually helped proliferate some pretty powerful information that would've otherwise stayed locked away. With this decision, I'm pretty sure we'll see a lot of independent news/ information sites snuffed out.
Click to expand...

If Netflix shifts the cost to consumers and it is a burden then the other providers of on demand movies can undercut Netflix and give that good ol' capitalism some mention at such times a chance to show it's hand in this.

I guess it depends on what 'small content providers' use in the way of bandwidth. Use small/pay small. Like many other usage fees, there can be a threshold of use you have to cross before fees kick-in. Course it could also hinge on commercial use vs 'private' use. Do it as a money making business or as a hobby.

I'm not ready to declare the end of lone bloggers, conspiracy websites, or local newspapers being able to put their weekly 3 pager on the internet just yet. (as much as losing the first 2 would make losing the last one acceptable collateral damage... ;) )
 
Deuce said:
:facepalm:
Click to expand...


Yes. And my point is - and has always been - that that is a sledgehammer approach. Everyone pays regardless of whether they use the bandwidth or not. Billing Netflix directly would be a step towards shifting the cost to those who actually incur them.
 
I disagree with the decision, and am of the opinion that the removal of Net Neutrality will have a negative effect.

To the point that if necessary, I would support a constitutional amendment supporting net neutrality.
 
Gaius46 said:
Yes. And my point is - and has always been - that that is a sledgehammer approach. Everyone pays regardless of whether they use the bandwidth or not. Billing Netflix directly would be a step towards shifting the cost to those who actually incur them.
Click to expand...
There is no way you could possibly prevent the increased costs to Netflix from being transferred to their customers.

Allowing cable companies to do this kind of thing gives them the power to drive companies like netflix out of business if they so desire.

Granted that might violate other laws I'm unaware of, but....since I'm not aware of them, they might not exist.
 
notquiteright said:
If Netflix shifts the cost to consumers and it is a burden then the other providers of on demand movies can undercut Netflix and give that good ol' capitalism some mention at such times a chance to show it's hand in this.

I guess it depends on what 'small content providers' use in the way of bandwidth. Use small/pay small. Like many other usage fees, there can be a threshold of use you have to cross before fees kick-in. Course it could also hinge on commercial use vs 'private' use. Do it as a money making business or as a hobby.

I'm not ready to declare the end of lone bloggers, conspiracy websites, or local newspapers being able to put their weekly 3 pager on the internet just yet. (as much as losing the first 2 would make losing the last one acceptable collateral damage... ;) )
Click to expand...
In some ways, I consider any kind of corporation or individual-specific (wait, they're the same thing now, right? :2razz:) price setting for internet usage as a violation of the 1st Amendment...Not directly, but I could easily see an internet provider raising the cost of internet bandwidth for someone who does something they don't like.

I guess my thinking about this whole thing is: "do you trust the various internet providers to decide what information will be cheapest for you to view?"

And my answer is: No.
 
Gaius46 said:
Yes. And my point is - and has always been - that that is a sledgehammer approach. Everyone pays regardless of whether they use the bandwidth or not. Billing Netflix directly would be a step towards shifting the cost to those who actually incur them.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you are talking about. Netflix pays for their bandwidth on their servers. I pay for my bandwidth to my machine. That price is expensive and includes all incidental costs needed to transport said data. Everyone is paying for what they use.
 
rathi said:
You have no idea what you are talking about. Netflix pays for their bandwidth on their servers. I pay for my bandwidth to my machine. That price is expensive and includes all incidental costs needed to transport said data. Everyone is paying for what they use.
Click to expand...
Besides which, unless you control the prices that Netflix charges as well, it's for damn sure they'll pass any increased costs on to their customers.
 
The Mark said:
Thing is, many of those countries are much smaller, area-wise, than the US.

Also factor in our large rural areas (as opposed to, say....Hong Kong?).

It's not a very valid comparison, IMO.
Click to expand...


It's plenty valid when you consider that a decade ago, the United States was #1 on that list.

Clearly, our method of providing broadband to consumers is flawed.
 
Peter Grimm said:
It's plenty valid when you consider that a decade ago, the United States was #1 on that list.

Clearly, our method of providing broadband to consumers is flawed.
Click to expand...
Part of that is probably how ahead we were a decade ago. they had to do less to catch up.

However, I would agree that in many cases our infrastructure is lacking.

For example, I think overhead lines, for both power and communications, are a bit behind the times (unless I misunderstand) - yet we keep repairing them after some random wind/snow/ice storm knocks them down. I suppose in most cases repair is cheaper than replacement with underground lines, but...
 
The Mark said:
Part of that is probably how ahead we were a decade ago. they had to do less to catch up.

However, I would agree that in many cases our infrastructure is lacking.

For example, I think overhead lines, for both power and communications, are a bit behind the times (unless I misunderstand) - yet we keep repairing them after some random wind/snow/ice storm knocks them down. I suppose in most cases repair is cheaper than replacement with underground lines, but...
Click to expand...


I'm not at all impressed with American broadband options.

I live in downtown Dallas, which is the 4th largest metro area in the country. The only broadband offered in my area is Time Warner Cable and ATT's DSL.

I have Time Warner's premium package, and I just speed tested at 15.89 mbps.

According to the chart, folks in my native Sweden are downloading over twice as fast at 42.35 mbps, and that is quite a rural country as well.

Not impressed in the least. In addition, ours is the most expensive. What exactly are we paying for?

It's like the 80's all over again with the cars, remember how terrible American cars were? American broadband is a 1984 Dodge Monaco.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I'm not at all impressed with American broadband options.

I live in downtown Dallas, which is the 4th largest metro area in the country. The only broadband offered in my area is Time Warner Cable and ATT's DSL.

I have Time Warner's premium package, and I just speed tested at 15.89 mbps.

According to the chart, folks in my native Sweden are downloading over twice as fast at 42.35 mbps, and that is quite a rural country as well.

Not impressed in the least. In addition, ours is the most expensive. What exactly are we paying for?

It's like the 80's all over again with the cars, remember how terrible American cars were? American broadband is a 1984 Dodge Monaco.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, one of the main reasons for higher speeds in other countries is government spending on internet infrastructure. National government spending, in many cases.

Whereas, at best, here in the US the only governmental support of internet infrastructure might be on a state level, and probably only local (as in, a city).

Not just internet infrastructure, but also power infrastructure, I think...
 
The Mark said:
Thing is, many of those countries are much smaller, area-wise, than the US.

Also factor in our large rural areas (as opposed to, say....Hong Kong?).

It's not a very valid comparison, IMO.
Click to expand...

The "rural area" excuse doesn't work because even the most densely populated areas in the nation still have crappy broadband speeds. Meanwhile, Sweden has a tiny population and screamingly fast internet. Our current ISPs are utterly pathetic.
 
rathi said:
The "rural area" excuse doesn't work because even the most densely populated areas in the nation still have crappy broadband speeds. Meanwhile, Sweden has a tiny population and screamingly fast internet. Our current ISPs are utterly pathetic.
Click to expand...
Small population probably makes it easier to provide excellent service.

I'm not saying we have good service, just that it's likely not as easy to fix as you might think.
 
Gaius46 said:
Yes. And my point is - and has always been - that that is a sledgehammer approach. Everyone pays regardless of whether they use the bandwidth or not. Billing Netflix directly would be a step towards shifting the cost to those who actually incur them.
Click to expand...
A lot of ISPs already charge their customers by download amount per month, which is as it should be. Charging Netflix or Hulu or YouTube for the same download is ludicrous and price gouging.

A better solution would be for the CTV companies to adopt a better business model. If Netflix et al is stealing their business then maybe they should adapt as a CTV company instead of using their position as an ISP to cover their failure by raping their Internet customers.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom