• 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!

Disgusting GOP effort to defund net neutrality protections

cpwill said:
Your claim was about Republicans decision-making process - you were arguing that they opposed net neutrality not for any particular reason inherent to the policy, but rather because Obama was for it. The counter that Republicans have demonstrate that that is not, in fact, how they make decisions, is rather germane :).
Click to expand...

Your mental acrobatics don't change the fact that conservatives made up their minds about NN when it was likened to Obamacare for the internet...and that you still don't know what it is.
 
Cardinal said:
Your mental acrobatics don't change the fact that conservatives made up their minds about NN when it was likened to Obamacare for the internet...and that you still don't know what it is.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I have enough of a knowledge of net neutrality and the problems it is designed to address to be for it. I'll admit I'm not an IT guy, but the basic issue of competitive speeds to disadvantage competitors from the main providers seems fairly uncomplicated, as is the claim that the providers don't actually compete.

But you have presented about as much reason for why conservatives oppose NN as I would had I simply argued that the liberals in favor are simply useful idiots doing whatever Obama tells them to - a foolish charge (on both accounts). Your claim was about Republicans decision-making process - you were arguing that they opposed net neutrality not for any particular reason inherent to the policy, but rather because Obama was for it. The counter that Republicans have demonstrate that that is not, in fact, how they make decisions was and remains germane. Republicans do have a credible and worthy argument that this is a dangerous accumulation of power in the hands of a group (the federal bureaucracy) who could easily abuse it, and have not demonstrated a particular aversion to doing so.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: I have enough of a knowledge of net neutrality and the problems it is designed to address to be for it.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Nobody needs to be an IT guy to understand the basics of net neutrality.

cpwill said:
I'll admit I'm not an IT guy, but the basic issue of competitive speeds to disadvantage competitors from the main providers seems fairly uncomplicated, as is the claim that the providers don't actually compete.

But you have presented about as much reason for why conservatives oppose NN as I would had I simply argued that the liberals in favor are simply useful idiots doing whatever Obama tells them to - a foolish charge (on both accounts). Your claim was about Republicans decision-making process - you were arguing that they opposed net neutrality not for any particular reason inherent to the policy, but rather because Obama was for it. The counter that Republicans have demonstrate that that is not, in fact, how they make decisions was and remains germane. Republicans do have a credible and worthy argument that this is a dangerous accumulation of power in the hands of a group (the federal bureaucracy) who could easily abuse it, and have not demonstrated a particular aversion to doing so.
Click to expand...

Support for neutrality was universally agreed upon, and in fact nobody even thought to make it a partisan issue, until Obama came out in support of it. You can't ignore the timing. All your mental acrobatics can't change the timing of the debate.
 
Cardinal said:
Prove it. Nobody needs to be an IT guy to understand the basics of net neutrality.
Click to expand...

What, you mean like Mark Cuban?
Support for neutrality was universally agreed upon, and in fact nobody even thought to make it a partisan issue, until Obama came out in support of it. You can't ignore the timing. All your mental acrobatics can't change the timing of the debate.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I don't care about the timing. The arguments are what matter. Even the CEO of the company that lobbied the most for Net Neutrality (and lets' not pretend this wasn't a company v company fight) says that the way the rules came out actually grants the government more power than he thought it should.

Worth noting, however, for this argument is that it was actually a party line matter before the "obamacare for the internet" charge got made.

the FCC’s new rules give the federal government much more power over the broadband industry than it really needs to effectively ensure net neutrality. For example, under these rules, the government could theoretically regulate how much Comcast or Verizon can charge you for an Internet connection. The FCC has promised not to use those those powers, but the idea that it could gives many Republicans the willies.

Politics is often the art of finding the second-best solution. In this case, the FCC was forced into claiming the broader authority after industry lawsuits threw out earlier attempts to ensure net neutrality through less expansive powers. But that means it’s vulnerable to criticism from Republicans who think it overreached....
Click to expand...

The argument that this is a power that it is easy to imagine being abused is a valid one.
 
Last edited:
Kobie said:
No, that is not what net neutrality is. You're wrong. Period, end of conversation.
Click to expand...

I don't know, but I am getting the feeling you haven't actually read the Net Neutrality rules. This sounds more like the position of a person who has only read what other people say it will do. Or even worse, thinks the title describes the content; like the ACA. I have been known to be wrong, and I could be wrong now (about you having read it). So if you could show us the part where the Government cannot regulate content, it would be appreciated.
 
natsb said:
I don't know, but I am getting the feeling you haven't actually read the Net Neutrality rules. This sounds more like the position of a person who has only read what other people say it will do. Or even worse, thinks the title describes the content; like the ACA. I have been known to be wrong, and I could be wrong now (about you having read it). So if you could show us the part where the Government cannot regulate content, it would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

Where is the part where it says it CAN? I have better things to do than try to prove a negative.
 
attacking net neutrality is a deal killer for me. any candidate on either side who doesn't understand why it is so vitally important will never get my vote. this site would be cast into the slow lane, and companies like netflix would be largely insulated against startups that couldn't afford the preferential data treatment.

**** that.
 
Cardinal said:
Prove it. Nobody needs to be an IT guy to understand the basics of net neutrality.



Support for neutrality was universally agreed upon, and in fact nobody even thought to make it a partisan issue, until Obama came out in support of it. You can't ignore the timing. All your mental acrobatics can't change the timing of the debate.
Click to expand...

Arguing about Net Neutrality started way back in 2003. It even failed to pass when first brought to Congress in 2005. I haven't taken the time to double check, but I am really sure President Obama was not yet out in favor of it; or even President. Come to think of it, it never passed Congress, even with the Democrats in charge. It was the Obama Administration that tried to run end around Congress and have it implemented as FCC rules. This tactic was of course shut down by the Courts. So no, I have never seen it universally agreed upon. It could be that we don't scan the same news sources.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: I have enough of a knowledge of net neutrality and the problems it is designed to address to be for it. I'll admit I'm not an IT guy, but the basic issue of competitive speeds to disadvantage competitors from the main providers seems fairly uncomplicated, as is the claim that the providers don't actually compete.

But you have presented about as much reason for why conservatives oppose NN as I would had I simply argued that the liberals in favor are simply useful idiots doing whatever Obama tells them to - a foolish charge (on both accounts). Your claim was about Republicans decision-making process - you were arguing that they opposed net neutrality not for any particular reason inherent to the policy, but rather because Obama was for it. The counter that Republicans have demonstrate that that is not, in fact, how they make decisions was and remains germane. Republicans do have a credible and worthy argument that this is a dangerous accumulation of power in the hands of a group (the federal bureaucracy) who could easily abuse it, and have not demonstrated a particular aversion to doing so.
Click to expand...

Yet that same power in the hands of huge corporations is harmless? The potential abuse of power for profit is a much more compelling argument than the Govt. boogieman. My belief is that Republicans are selling out to special interests as usual. They are only proving that their meme about govt. being bad is only true when they call the shots.
 
Last edited:
natsb said:
Arguing about Net Neutrality started way back in 2003. It even failed to pass when first brought to Congress in 2005. I haven't taken the time to double check, but I am really sure President Obama was not yet out in favor of it; or even President. Come to think of it, it never passed Congress, even with the Democrats in charge. It was the Obama Administration that tried to run end around Congress and have it implemented as FCC rules. This tactic was of course shut down by the Courts. So no, I have never seen it universally agreed upon. It could be that we don't scan the same news sources.
Click to expand...

People were arguing about net neutrality in 2003 like people were calling for government to get out of marriage before the same sex marriage movement.
 
Kobie said:
Where is the part where it says it CAN? I have better things to do than try to prove a negative.
Click to expand...

So I was right... I didn't think you actually read the text.

Let us look at some of the rules.
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
Click to expand...
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.
Click to expand...
Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) endusers’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or
(ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to endusers. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.
Click to expand...
This “no unreasonable interference/disadvantage” standard protects free expression, thus fulfilling the congressional policy that “the Internet offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
Click to expand...


So what is "reasonable"

A network management practice is a practice that has a primarily technical network management justification, but does not include other business practices. A network management practice is reasonable if it is primarily used for and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service.
Click to expand...

So what is "legitimate"
Although the Commission historically has not used advisory opinions to promote compliance with our rules, we conclude that they have the potential to serve as useful tools to provide clarity, guidance, and predictability concerning the open Internet rules.598 Advisory opinions will enable companies to seek guidance on the propriety of certain open Internet practices before implementing them, enabling them to be proactive about compliance and avoid enforcement actions later
Click to expand...

So... Reasonable and legitimate is whatever the current FCC Commission says it is.

And it gets even better. The FCC gets to determine that they can ignore the "vast majority" of their own rules when it comes to Net Neutrality.
In finding that broadband Internet access service is subject to Title II, we simultaneously exercise the Commission’s forbearance authority to forbear from 30 statutory provisions and render over 700 codified rules inapplicable, to establish a light-touch regulatory framework tailored to preserving those provisions that advance our goals of more, better, and open broadband. We thus forbear from the vast majority of rules adopted under Title II.
Click to expand...

So we need Net Neutrality to stop private enterprise from doing things that they have never actually done, because they might. While on the other hand we can trust the Government not to abuse their powers; which they constantly do. Bizarro World is real.
 
Ladies and gentlemen, the millenial generation.

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2
 
Kobie said:
NN does not give the government control over internet content. It just doesn't.
Click to expand...

Yet another person who has not actually read the text, but feels free to proclaim what is in it. Do you have a word other than "control" that would describe what it means that the Government tells the ISPs what to do and when to do it?
 
iguanaman said:
Yet that same power in the hands of huge corporations is harmless? The potential abuse of power for profit is a much more compelling argument than the Govt. boogieman. My belief is that Republicans are selling out to special interests as usual. They are only proving that their meme about govt. being bad is only true when they call the shots.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll bite. Can you give an example of "potential abuse of power for profit" that we can discuss? Or is this an imagined machination?
 
natsb said:
Okay, I'll bite. Can you give an example of "potential abuse of power for profit" that we can discuss? Or is this an imagined machination?
Click to expand...

LOL You need examples of corporate greed? I will give you the definition of net neutrality and see if you can figure out what might be done to squeeze users and web site owners for extra profits. If you are still stumped I will give it to you.

The concept that all data on the internet should be treated equally by corporations, such as internet service providers, and governments, regardless of content, user, platform, application or device. Network neutrality requires all Internet service providers (ISPs) to provide the same level of data access and speed to all traffic, and that traffic to one service or website cannot be blocked or degraded. ISPs are also not to create special arrangements with services or websites, in which companies providing them are given improved network access or speed.
Click to expand...
Read more: Net Neutrality Definition | Investopedia
Follow us: @Investopedia on Twitter
 
natsb said:
So I was right... I didn't think you actually read the text.

Let us look at some of the rules.



So what is "reasonable"



So what is "legitimate"


So... Reasonable and legitimate is whatever the current FCC Commission says it is.

And it gets even better. The FCC gets to determine that they can ignore the "vast majority" of their own rules when it comes to Net Neutrality.


So we need Net Neutrality to stop private enterprise from doing things that they have never actually done, because they might. While on the other hand we can trust the Government not to abuse their powers; which they constantly do. Bizarro World is real.
Click to expand...

Th only bizzaro world I see is yours. The Govt. cannot profit from its regulations where as corporations can and will profit from the lack of them. Please don't be a Greenspan and say that corporations like bankers won't behave badly because they have changed. People and corporations don't change, they will always try and squeeze more money out of their customers unless blocked by regulations.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL You need examples of corporate greed? I will give you the definition of net neutrality and see if you can figure out what might be done to squeeze users and web site owners for extra profits. If you are still stumped I will give it to you.


Read more: Net Neutrality Definition | Investopedia
Follow us: @Investopedia on Twitter
Click to expand...

Nice try, but way short of valid. Why wouldn't you reference the definition of NN that is actually in the FCC rules? Within the text of the rules (yes, I expect you to read them for yourself), show me an example of "potential abuse of power for profit". If your point cannot withstand daylight, just say so; we can move on. If your point can withstand open discussion, I am interested.
 
iguanaman said:
Th only bizzaro world I see is yours. The Govt. cannot profit from its regulations where as corporations can and will profit from the lack of them. Please don't be a Greenspan and say that corporations like bankers won't behave badly because they have changed. People and corporations don't change, they will always try and squeeze more money out of their customers unless blocked by regulations.
Click to expand...

I backed my position with actual text from the FCC NN rules. I was expecting the same in return. You dismiss the reality of the FCC document and insert a tired liberal meme. Bizarro World indeed. My apologies if I mistook you for someone interested in discussing this topic seriously. It would appear I was mislead.
 
iguanaman said:
Putting the most greedy corporations in control instead is insane. They will destroy the internet in pursuit of profits.
Click to expand...

Like the Chinese?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom