• 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!

Do You Believe There Should Be a "Pay to Play" System on the Internet

Do You Believe There Should Be a "Pay to Play" System on the Internet

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 4.3%

  • No

    Votes: 44 93.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 1 2.1%
  • Total voters
    47
I'll vote at least 'maybe'.
Netflix accounts for app 1/3 of net traffic. (!)
Youtube another 18%
Between the two, over 50%.
Netflix and YouTube make up majority of US internet traffic, new report shows | Technology | theguardian.com

Does the net have unlimited capacity?
Are they even slightly slowing everyone else down?
Will they by 2018?

This is especially cogent I think, in the case of a Pay-per-view company like Netflix, whose gobbling all this currently Free capacity and making a living/Profit off it.
Shouldn't they (and their customers) be paying for what enables their Piggy biz?
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
I'll vote at least 'maybe'.
Netflix accounts for app 1/3 of net traffic. (!)
Youtube another 18%
Between the two, over 50%.
Netflix and YouTube make up majority of US internet traffic, new report shows | Technology | theguardian.com

Does the net have unlimited capacity?
Are they even slightly slowing everyone else down?
Will they by 2018?

This is especially cogent I think, in the case of a Pay-per-view company like Netflix, whose gobbling all this currently Free capacity and making a living/Profit off it.
Shouldn't they (and their customers) be paying for what enables their piggy biz?
Click to expand...

Ya, you pay for access to the pipes, and in some cases a premium for more data flow, part of the cost of hosting video is in uploading that video, and so that cost is factored into the price of membership. The cable company ISPs charge a HUGE PREMIUM relative to the money put into maintenance and expansion of the grid, so that cost is covered...


All this is is a money grab.... While killing free speech as we know it.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Do you believe the FCC should allow a "pay to play" system on the internet?
A new FCC Chair threatens to let cable and phone companies create an Internet fast lane for companies that can afford it and a slow lane for everyone else who cannot afford it.
Click to expand...

They already do that for non business, I pay $53 a month for slow, if I want the fastest, it costs $30 more.

I say they should provide everyone, even businesses with fast, and the FCC should make these corporations comply, instead of allowing them to play their little gosh danged pricing games. I'm fed up with slow crappy service.

There should be at least a governing body to regulate how these internet corporations charge outrageous fees for crap.
 
Last edited:
AJiveMan said:
They already do that for non business, I pay $53 a month for slow, if I want the fastest, it costs $30 more.

I say they should provide everyone, even businesses with fast, and the FCC should make these corporations comply, instead of allowing them to play their little gosh danged pricing games. I'm fed up with slow crappy service.
Click to expand...


....maybe... you should..... i dunno.... pay the $30?

it seems you are not that fed up with slow, crappy service, as you have the ability to change it. I don't know you but it seems like you are demanding superior service for free.








I'm having to read up on this a bit. They way I see it now, it basically boils down to whether or not the Internet is a Public Sphere, to which equal access cannot be denied, or a series of point-to-point communications, which carriers have the right to charge variable rates for.
 
cpwill said:
....maybe... you should..... i dunno.... pay the $30?

it seems you are not that fed up with slow, crappy service, as you have the ability to change it. I don't know you but it seems like you are demanding superior service for free.








I'm having to read up on this a bit. They way I see it now, it basically boils down to whether or not the Internet is a Public Sphere, to which equal access cannot be denied, or a series of point-to-point communications, which carriers have the right to charge variable rates for.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we liburuls just love free ****. :doh
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: It seems that's what you want here.
Click to expand...

If I wanted free, I wouldn't be paying for what I receive from a corporation whose service is spotty at best.

If I wanted free, I'd hook up a yagi antenna and tap Burger King, Applebee's, or Mc Donalds wifi. I already have a wireless card installed.

When you're retired, and live on a fixed income, every dollar spent matters.

Black-yagi-(lg).jpg
 
AJiveMan said:
If I wanted free, I wouldn't be paying for what I receive from a corporation whose service is spotty at best.
Click to expand...

But you do want free. You want the corporation to upgrade your service and provide you with something of higher quality, but you aren't willing to pay for it.
 
cpwill said:
But you do want free. You want the corporation to upgrade your service and provide you with something of higher quality, but you aren't willing to pay for it.
Click to expand...

I believe all internet speeds should be the same, and at set reasonably affordable prices, not the non competition that we presently have.

We're not talking about Cadillac vs Volkswagen here either (better for more money) cable companies operate a monopoly, and the consumer is the game piece.

If I wanted free, I would do what I said in my last post, what part of that do you not understand?
 
AJiveMan said:
I believe all internet speeds should be the same, and at set reasonably affordable prices, not the non competition that we presently have.
Click to expand...

No, you beleive that your internet speed should be better. You don't complain that others have good internet, you complain that you have poor internet. You have the option for it to be better, but you would have to pay for it, which you are unwilling to do.
 
cpwill said:
No, you beleive that your internet speed should be better. You don't complain that others have good internet, you complain that you have poor internet. You have the option for it to be better, but you would have to pay for it, which you are unwilling to do.
Click to expand...
I am of the belief that no internet speeds should be metered, the speed should be the same. That's my argument.
 
AJiveMan said:
I am of the belief that no internet speeds should be metered, the speed should be the same. That's my argument.
Click to expand...

Yes, and you think that your speed should be faster. But you are not willing to pay for it.
 
I think all internet connections should be of the fastest form reasonably possible, given the limits of technology and available funds.

IMO, the "internet" should be another public infrastructure, like roads.
A road transports physical objects, internet transports information.
Information can be sold and traded, just as physical objects can.

What would happen if a road was run by a corporation, and they could control how fast a transport vehicle traveled, allowing higher-paying companies to travel faster?

Larger companies would deliver their goods faster, and have an advantage over smaller companies. Hell in some businesses, such as produce transport, a limited speed would spell disaster (due to potentially spoiled food).

OR...something like that.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Do you believe the FCC should allow a "pay to play" system on the internet?
A new FCC Chair threatens to let cable and phone companies create an Internet fast lane for companies that can afford it and a slow lane for everyone else who cannot afford it.
Click to expand...

No.

Such a scheme would create conditions where only the very big companies were able to compete and gain larger shares of the marketplace leaving smaller upstarts in the dust. Moreover, only the wealthy would be able to afford the best Internet services or be "quick on the draw" to get online deals ahead of everyone else leaving those who can't afford to "upgrade" at the bottom of the heap.

Now, some might say a tiered system of Internet connectivity services already exists for consumers and they'd be right. However, this is deemed acceptable because at least consumers know they can upgrade if their economic status changes and they decide to pay for the faster connection speed. But the "pay-to-play" scheme would only leave the low-level services available to low-wage customers and high-level services only to the wealthy. The very nature of "choice and competition" would erode.
 
tacomancer said:
In other words, do you want the internet or AOL? :)
Click to expand...

A very good dummied-down analogy. I remember the "You've Got Mail" Internet era very well, and when AOL/Time-Warner came into play I worried they'd become another AT&T. Good thing there were other start-ups out their like Yahoo, MindSpring and EarthLink to atleast provide options. I could see Google having control; at least most of what they'd provide would be free or at a reasonable cost. But Comcast? Those blood suckers would squeeze ever red cent from their customers and never look back.

*Disclaimer: I've never used Comcast; have neighbors who did and they hated the service. I've used the same independent Internet provider for years.
 
AJiveMan said:
If I wanted free, I wouldn't be paying for what I receive from a corporation whose service is spotty at best.

If I wanted free, I'd hook up a yagi antenna and tap Burger King, Applebee's, or Mc Donalds wifi. I already have a wireless card installed.

When you're retired, and live on a fixed income, every dollar spent matters.

View attachment 67166681
Click to expand...

Dang! Maybe everyone should look into this antenna if this foolish net neutrality thing becomes reality.
 
cpwill said:
No, you beleive that your internet speed should be better. You don't complain that others have good internet, you complain that you have poor internet. You have the option for it to be better, but you would have to pay for it, which you are unwilling to do.
Click to expand...

It's become an economic choice for AJiveMan - do I spend my limited resources on upgrading my high-speed Internet access service or do I put that $30 towards a better use, i.e., paying for meds or food or gas?

Some choices aren't so straight-forward to make as you'd make them out to be. Nonetheless, in principle I understand you completely. Just that in reality, it's not always that simple.
 
AJiveMan said:
I am of the belief that no internet speeds should be metered, the speed should be the same. That's my argument.
Click to expand...

But varying speeds is probably the only real bargaining chip ISPs have considering the much of the security features for accessing the Internet are based on what operating system runs your computer. ISPs tried providing security features, but big box security software companies like McAvee and Microsoft with their Windows Security Updates made this so-called "premium services" for ISPs obsolete.

So, other than access/download speeds coupled with premium TV channels and movies, what else can ISPs over their customers they can't get anywhere else except faster connectivity?
 
The Mark said:
I think all internet connections should be of the fastest form reasonably possible, given the limits of technology and available funds.

IMO, the "internet" should be another public infrastructure, like roads.
A road transports physical objects, internet transports information.
Information can be sold and traded, just as physical objects can.

What would happen if a road was run by a corporation, and they could control how fast a transport vehicle traveled, allowing higher-paying companies to travel faster?

Larger companies would deliver their goods faster, and have an advantage over smaller companies. Hell in some businesses, such as produce transport, a limited speed would spell disaster (due to potentially spoiled food).

OR...something like that.
Click to expand...

Another great analogy...would explain why people hate toll-roads!
 
Objective Voice said:
Another great analogy...would explain why people hate toll-roads!
Click to expand...
Of course any public internet infrastructure would require appropriate taxes related to it, much as non-toll roads do.

In fact you could have toll-road equivalents on the internet, so long as alternate routes existed...much like toll roads.

The big questions are how the current system could be transferred to public control, how to avoid bureaucratic waste, how high the taxes might go, and lastly how to avoid having some of those taxes siphoned off to feed some pork project or whatnot.
 
Absolutely.

Bandwidth cost money. ISPs have to pay for the bandwidth they sale. Without a "pay to play" system, then you have either the ISP or the larger users paying for the "little guy" while reducing their own bandwidth availability. It is absolutely wrong that the larger companies must made to subsidize equal market penetration/availability to it's competitors.

To put it a more traditional setting, without "pay to play", it would be like telling Walmart that has national coverage that it must pay for shipping, handling, storage and facilities for any of it's competitors to have equal market penetration. That is BS.

Perhaps you are unaware, but at least in the US, the government does not own and maintain the entire Internet. It builds and maintains those portions of it reserved for governmental use. Commercial entities build and maintain those portions of it that are used for private and commercial use.
 
And if you want to think it about it from another perspective, think of a mall. Who gets the areas near the main entrance and the highest traffic and who gets a back corner with the least amount of traffic. Simple, it's based upon who pays the most.

If Netflix and Hulu are both competing and want the best bandwidth, a limited resource, who gets the better. The one who pays for it of course.
 
1. NO
2.Oh He** NO
3.OH HE** NO
4. Is this international or just u.s.?
5. How would this affect the 96% of the internet you cant access by simple search engines?
6. Oh F***en He** no
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom