• 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

No, by monopolizing bandwidth, which is the same reason Ma Bell was broken up in the 80's.

By the way, that breakup was the single best thing that's ever happened to the US economy in my lifetime.
Except the internet providers aren't monopolizing bandwidth. If you have a lack of providers in your area, look to your local governmental regulations because that's probably the source of your problem.
 
Except the internet providers aren't monopolizing bandwidth. If you have a lack of providers in your area, look to your local governmental regulations because that's probably the source of your problem.

Ha ha - do you have any idea how this actually works?

Laying wire and fiber infrastructure in neighborhoods is expensive. No company is going to do that unless they get guarantees from the government, that other people aren't going to be able to render their investment(s) useless.
 
The corporations are also under regulations that prevent them from monopolizing and price fixing. That bothers you? That is when capitalism fails, when Govt. allows monopolies to form and turns its back on price fixing.

No, it doesn't bother me at all. Monopolies are evil and should be prevented. I don't see where we disagree here.

I would bet that where we do disagree, is that I think all monopolies are evil including the ones in the Government's grasp.
 
Don't be ridiculous.

The government doesn't "want it back", any more than they wanted Ma Bell's land lines in the 80's.

Of course they want it back. That is the whole purpose of Net Neutrality; to put it under their control.

No, the government is trying to keep the playing field level, so a company like Verizon doesn't end up "owning the internet".

Now who is being ridiculous? The Internet has too many moving parts for any one corporation to own it. The only entity that can take ownership, as has been proven in other countries, is the entity with the guns and badges.

The internet is unquestionably a public communications facility, and not only that, one that plays a key role in national security.

The medium for the Internet is privately owned, not public. That is the part that is driving the left nuts. How dare something so enabling of the public good be allowed to exist without Government interference? Thus the authoritarian instincts of the left created this monster called Net Neutrality.

The internet should not be unregulated. The government needs to ensure access, and it needs to ensure equal access, so you and I don't get kicked off the net whenever Verizon wants some advertising revenue.

Try this, say what you typed out loud. That way it is easier to catch the contradiction in what you are saying. Seriously? Are you proposing that the way to make the Internet concordant with public discourse is to cease its open and unregulated status, and put network traffic under the control of some nameless bureaucrat? When has Verizon ever kicked someone off the Internet in lieu of advertising revenue? Please read your comments out loud before accusing others of being ridiculous.
 
What's funny is the people who think we have an open free market with the internet NOW, and because of that they believe these Corps. are looking out for their best interests. I live in an area that has 100,000's of people, but I only have TWO choices for an ISP.. TWO! The corps have conventionally carved up the neighborhoods and now almost a monopoly.

It can be explained when last year Comcast said they should be allowed to merge with TW because Comcast and TW don't compete with each other now. LOL. How the hell can the #1 and #2 biggest cable providers NOT compete with each other? There's only 1 way, collusion and carving up the areas and neighborhoods so they don't step on each other toes. And these are the type of Corps. and the people running these Corps who some here want to handle and run the internet without government regulation?

It is interesting that you direct your distain at the cable companies instead of the real culprit, the local Government. A cable company cannot run cable without a certificate of public good. The certificate is needed because the companies are using public right of ways, and in exchange for that access, they must provide PEG (Public, Educational, & Government Access Television) channels. It is the local jurisdiction that got together and voted on only allowing the two providers you have. They don't want ten companies running ten cables down every street. Therefore, the number of cable providers is determined by your city or county councils, not the private sector.

As for your second point, it is important to note that cable companies and Internet are not one in the same. The cable company may or may not act as an ISP, but that in no way restricts you to only using them. Apples and oranges...
 
It is interesting that you direct your distain at the cable companies instead of the real culprit, the local Government. A cable company cannot run cable without a certificate of public good. The certificate is needed because the companies are using public right of ways, and in exchange for that access, they must provide PEG (Public, Educational, & Government Access Television) channels. It is the local jurisdiction that got together and voted on only allowing the two providers you have. They don't want ten companies running ten cables down every street. Therefore, the number of cable providers is determined by your city or county councils, not the private sector.

As for your second point, it is important to note that cable companies and Internet are not one in the same. The cable company may or may not act as an ISP, but that in no way restricts you to only using them. Apples and oranges...

Yep, I've heard that argument before. But let's not be naive about this, remember the cable companies are lobbying all levels of government to get the OK for this collusion. I do blame the government, but it starts with the cable companies lobbying and throwing millions of dollars around. I hope you don't believe the cable companies aren't involved in this.
 
Ha ha - do you have any idea how this actually works?

Laying wire and fiber infrastructure in neighborhoods is expensive. No company is going to do that unless they get guarantees from the government, that other people aren't going to be able to render their investment(s) useless.

I happen to have very deep knowledge of how this actually works, and Moon is correct. Look to your local Government to figure out why there are only two providers, as they make the rules.

Yes, laying cable is expensive, but many jurisdiction demand competing providers for the citizens. That is why many jurisdictions require cable sharing. That means, for example, if Comcast actually ran the cable, they still have to allow other companies to use the same cable after paying an access fee. The company paying the access fee still has to comply with PEG, and get issued a certificate of public use.

There are no guarantees. The Government cannot force people to pay for cable, at least not for now. Mayhap it will go the way of medical insurance, and people will be forced to buy it or pay a fine in their taxes. For now, that is just a leftist pipe dream.
 
Last edited:
Yep, I've heard that argument before. But let's not be naive about this, remember the cable companies are lobbying all levels of government to get the OK for this collusion. I do blame the government, but it starts with the cable companies lobbying and throwing millions of dollars around. I hope you don't believe the cable companies aren't involved in this.

Of course they are involved. Any company wants to be the one that actually runs the media, and then gets to charge all the other companies the access fee. That is just good business. Nothing wrong with that.
 
I happen to have very deep knowledge of how this actually works, and Moon is correct. Look to your local Government to figure out why there are only two providers as they make the rules.

Yes, laying cable is expensive, but many jurisdiction demand competing providers for the citizens. That is why many jurisdictions require cable sharing. That means, for example, if Comcast actually ran the cable, they still have to allow other companies to use the same cable after paying an access fee. The company paying the access fee still has to comply with PEG, and get issued a certificate of public use.

There are no guarantees. The Government cannot force people to pay for cable, at least not for now. Mayhap it will go the way of medical insurance, and people will be forced to buy it or pay a fine in their taxes. For now, that is just a leftist pipe dream.

Yes, at our latest leftist meeting, we all discussed how we can force people to pay for cable.

Do you actually type out this drivel, or is it a cut-and-paste job?
 
Yes, at our latest leftist meeting, we all discussed how we can force people to pay for cable.

You're right -that is silly. :lol: like liberals would ever want to force someone to purchase a private product.
 
I know that targeting programs that are objectively helpful to them is just a Conservative thing to do, but this Net Neutrality hard-on they have is super bizarre to me.

:shrug: Should republicans be able to steer, shape, or otherwise control the media content that people get?
 
You're right -that is silly. :lol: like liberals would ever want to force someone to purchase a private product.

If someone doesn't have cable and needs to watch TV or else they'll die, the taxpayer and/or insurance policy holder isn't on the hook to pay for that person's emergency television transfusion. #analogyfail
 
:shrug: Should republicans be able to steer, shape, or otherwise control the media content that people get?

That's not what net neutrality is. That's the OPPOSITE of what net neutrality is.
 
Of course they are involved. Any company wants to be the one that actually runs the media, and then gets to charge all the other companies the access fee. That is just good business. Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with that? There's plenty wrong with that. Only having 2 providers is collusion. Collision between businesses is never good for the consumer. Sometimes I wonder who is more for free markets. Because of their love affair with businesses Republicans often seem to be definitely against free market policies. Anyway thankfully this net neutrality should offer some protection from the ISP's.
 
I know that targeting programs that are objectively helpful to them is just a Conservative thing to do, but this Net Neutrality hard-on they have is super bizarre to me.

Obama likes it. It is, ergo, fascism by default.

The only conclusion I can draw is that American conservatives hate Obama more than they like good things.
 
Yes, at our latest leftist meeting, we all discussed how we can force people to pay for cable.

Do you actually type out this drivel, or is it a cut-and-paste job?

I would love to attend one of those meetings. Is there a secret handshake to get in? Just out of curiosity, who is forced to pay for the free Internet access for inner cities?

Yes, I actually type it out. If I cut and paste, I would have a lot less spelling and grammar errors.

My apologies. I an new here and I assumed a political discussion group would attract people with enough communication skills to determine when something was said tongue in cheek. From now on I will use [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm] markers to keep the sensitive from feeling like victims of micro-aggression.

edit: Oops! I forgot to use the markers on that last sentence. My apologies.
 
That's not what net neutrality is. That's the OPPOSITE of what net neutrality is.

on ze contrary. What "net neutrality" risks doing is taking the power to shape media and transferring that power from private entities to the government.

But I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question. Should republicans be able to steer, shape, or otherwise control the media content that people get?
 
Obama likes it. It is, ergo, fascism by default.

The only conclusion I can draw is that American conservatives hate Obama more than they like good things.

No - conservatives distrust government, and in particular they distrust government when government is given the ability to control how and what information we get.

If liberals are upset that conservatives are wary of giving democrats the ability to shape or steer media content because "gosh, it's ridiculous to suppose that we would ever abuse that power".... well, maybe they shouldn't have pushed for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.
 
I would love to attend one of those meetings. Is there a secret handshake to get in? Just out of curiosity, who is forced to pay for the free Internet access for inner cities?

Yes, I actually type it out. If I cut and paste, I would have a lot less spelling and grammar errors.

My apologies. I an new here and I assumed a political discussion group would attract people with enough communication skills to determine when something was said tongue in cheek. From now on I will use [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm] markers to keep the sensitive from feeling like victims of micro-aggression.

edit: Oops! I forgot to use the markers on that last sentence. My apologies.

You are going to be an awesome poster. Welcome to the forum :D
 
No - conservatives distrust government, and in particular they distrust government when government is given the ability to control how and what information we get.

If liberals are upset that conservatives are wary of giving democrats the ability to shape or steer media content because "gosh, it's ridiculous to suppose that we would ever abuse that power".... well, maybe they shouldn't have pushed for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

Your second paragraph belies your first.

It's not government you distrust, it's Democrats.

I would like to think you'd learn what net neutrality actually is before publicly showing all of us that you haven't the slightest clue what it entails (nor, apparently, the curiosity to rectify that), but I learned a long time ago that expectations are foolish when dealing with the modern American conservative.

The Fairness Doctrine has been deader than disco for nearly 40 years. Has it ever made it out of committee since then? Still clinging onto that bogeyman?
 
If someone doesn't have cable and needs to watch TV or else they'll die, the taxpayer and/or insurance policy holder isn't on the hook to pay for that person's emergency television transfusion. #analogyfail

Do us a favor. Look up the term "Digital Rights" and then get back to us. This Administration stands with the UN's determination that the Internet is a right and has so far spent $400 million in the effort to force us to provide Internet services. cpwill's analogy stands unblemished.
 
I would love to attend one of those meetings. Is there a secret handshake to get in? Just out of curiosity, who is forced to pay for the free Internet access for inner cities?

Yes, I actually type it out. If I cut and paste, I would have a lot less spelling and grammar errors.

My apologies. I an new here and I assumed a political discussion group would attract people with enough communication skills to determine when something was said tongue in cheek. From now on I will use [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm] markers to keep the sensitive from feeling like victims of micro-aggression.

edit: Oops! I forgot to use the markers on that last sentence. My apologies.

Guess I forgot to wear my mind-reading pants today.

Given the utter bull**** the conservatives who populate this place accuse liberals of on a daily basis, discerning sarcasm is not the easiest thing in the world.
 
Do us a favor. Look up the term "Digital Rights" and then get back to us. This Administration stands with the UN's determination that the Internet is a right and has so far spent $400 million in the effort to force us to provide Internet services. cpwill's analogy stands unblemished.

Nobody is being forced to receive internet services. Analogy fail.
 
Your second paragraph belies your first.

It's not government you distrust, it's Democrats.

Democrats periodically get to control government. That's one of the major reasons why you distrust government power - you recognize that you will not always be in charge of it, making the decisions you feel are wise. That being said, Republicans do plenty of things that are unwise as well, and shouldn't be trusted with that kind of power, either.

That is something that I think a lot of liberals who have celebrated Obama's expansion of Executive Authority haven't really dealt with yet - he is creating a lot of precedents for the next Republican President to use in dramatically changing healthcare, tax, or immigration policy without the consent of Congress.

I would like to think you'd learn what net neutrality actually is before publicly showing all of us that you haven't the slightest clue what it entails (nor, apparently, the curiosity to rectify that), but I learned a long time ago that expectations are foolish when dealing with the modern American conservative.

Firstly, I am (barely) for net neutrality, but only with a sunset provision. I recognize that what we have functions as a monopoly. I simply also have the ability to recognize that people who disagree with me can have good arguments for doing so, and conservatives who argue that putting the government in a position to control, shape, and steer information is dangerous are correct when they do so.

The Fairness Doctrine has been deader than disco for nearly 40 years. Has it ever made it out of committee since then? Still clinging onto that bogeyman?

:shrug: leading Democrats have been advocating for bringing it back for some time now. Why would I want to give them that power over not radio but the internet?

As near as I can tell, many of the same people advocating for giving government power over media content are the same ones who have a history of not seeing the problem with government steering or controlling media content. So, the relevant question to ask someone such as yourself is: do you want Republicans to be in a position where they can steer, shape, or control the media that we get?
 
Last edited:
That's not what net neutrality is. That's the OPPOSITE of what net neutrality is.

I believe you missed the point. That is exactly what Net Neutrality is. It gives the Government the sole right to "steer, shape, or otherwise control the media content that people get". That might sound good to you under a Democrat administration, but will it give you the same warm fuzzies under a Republican administration.
 
Back
Top Bottom