• 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!

U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality [W:23]

Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Zyphlin said:
The internet provider industry is not a free market. That's the problem.

My stance on Net Neutrality has always been that it's the poorer, but more realistic, of two options.

The best option would be to remove the regulations that largely grant geographical monopolies or duopolies to a few telecom giants. That, sadly, is unlikely to happen. So the next option is to use regulation to deal with the pitfalls caused by your other regulation.
Click to expand...

Its a free-er market. You can choose between DSL, cable, satelite, wifi. And theres no reason people cant innovate on top of that. Theres just no reason to because the companies that are effective monopolies are doing a good job.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Removable Mind said:
The First Amendment, with regards to free speech...it isn't without limitations. The government (at various levels) can intervene if speech is determined to be outside of its limitations.
Click to expand...

There are no limitations in the first amendment. Just because govt does it anyway, doesnt make it legal for them to do so.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Unitedwestand13 said:
Censorship is censorship and if it infringes on my right to free speech I have the right to protest the censorship.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that if I deny my children the right to view your posts, you have a right to protest that and DEMAND they be allowed to view them?
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Unfortunately this was inevitable. Internet providers have been pushing for this forever, and it was only a matter of time before they got their way.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

CanadaJohn said:
I'm probably a little slow, but is this in any way connected to the "fairness doctine" that Democrats seemed to be pushing for some years ago?
Click to expand...

No. It means that each internet provider( dial up, dsl, cable, satellite, etc ) can restrict or hinder your internet connection for whatever reason. If Time Warner wants to make it impossible for you to reach DISH Satellite TV Packages & Satellite Television Service | DISH to sign up for a competing service, they can.

Would they do that? Probably not. But they will most likely kill thepiratebay and the like. They are required to tell customers, however, if any of those types of activities are ongoing. Not exactly sure how the FTC determines the authenticity of their policies, but I suspect audits would take place.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

But is the porn safe?
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Chocolate said:
But is the porn safe?
Click to expand...

Always, it's the cash cow that fuels the internet. Has been since the beginning. In fact one of the first emails ever sent was ASCII porn.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

clownboy said:
Always, it's the cash cow that fuels the internet. Has been since the beginning. In fact one of the first emails ever sent was ASCII porn.
Click to expand...

well then I am no longer in fear. censor me all you want! just keep the porn safe
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Cephus said:
Because the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to free speech across the board, it only guarantees that the government cannot stop you. You have no right to use another person's platform for your speech. There's this really bizarre idea that the 1st Amendment guarantees that no one, anywhere, for any reason, can stop you from saying whatever you want to say. It's ludicrous and entirely false.

Have some realistic expectations.
Click to expand...

Of course you backed up that belief by voicing A&E's right to fire Phil Robertson and anyone else that has views that might be controversial. To do otherwise would be hypocritical.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

jonny5 said:
There are no limitations in the first amendment. Just because govt does it anyway, doesnt make it legal for them to do so.
Click to expand...

Alrighty then...welp, guess that settles that. So...you don't go along with "screaming fire in a theater" claim, huh?
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Samhain said:
No. It means that each internet provider( dial up, dsl, cable, satellite, etc ) can restrict or hinder your internet connection for whatever reason. If Time Warner wants to make it impossible for you to reach DISH Satellite TV Packages & Satellite Television Service | DISH to sign up for a competing service, they can.

Would they do that? Probably not. But they will most likely kill thepiratebay and the like. They are required to tell customers, however, if any of those types of activities are ongoing. Not exactly sure how the FTC determines the authenticity of their policies, but I suspect audits would take place.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

iguanaman said:
Of course you backed up that belief by voicing A&E's right to fire Phil Robertson and anyone else that has views that might be controversial. To do otherwise would be hypocritical.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, these are not free speech issues - A&E absolutely had the right to fire Phil Robertson if he breached his contract through expression of his controversial views. Doesn't mean that people had to agree with that firing, and many expressed their views of A&E's actions and the channel was forced to change its mind. Free speech protections are only relevant in relation to citizen interaction with government.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

danarhea said:
Get ready for corporate censorship of the internet.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about corporations - they can't do ****... They're not lawmakers - they cant force us to buy a product unlike the government with "Obamacare."

Besides corporations have been at this for so long - going back to the days of Cable TV providers.

The funny part about a lot of this is that it doesn't last very long due to competition....

Corporations cant censor anything....

If corporations were inept at anything they would have a stranglehold on pirating which is something they have no control over - look at Walmart for example. They sell CD's now for 5 bucks instead of the 10 or 15 they were charging 5 years ago before you could just download these cds for free..... So.... It's really going to be the consumer that dictates their actions anyways... Then given the fact we have free markets there will always be someone there to kick out the old and bring in the new.

Better than government regulation (which is happening regardless)...

Hell, this could be nothing more than a cloak for government regulation in the first place.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

iguanaman said:
Of course you backed up that belief by voicing A&E's right to fire Phil Robertson and anyone else that has views that might be controversial. To do otherwise would be hypocritical.
Click to expand...


Apples and oranges. The Constitution constrains government, not private actors. Robertson's remedy, if one exists, would have lay in whether his contract was violated.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

iguanaman said:
Of course you backed up that belief by voicing A&E's right to fire Phil Robertson and anyone else that has views that might be controversial. To do otherwise would be hypocritical.
Click to expand...

A&E had every tight to fire Phil Robertson if he said something they didn't like while they were paying him. Employment is "at will". Either side can stop at any time they want. Granted, the whole debacle was just a stunt to get ratings, they never intended to actually "fire" him, now he's back on the show, but they did not stifle his "free speech" rights one bit. He has a right to speak his mind. He has no freedom from the consequences of that speech, except where the government is involved.

There's nothing hypocritical about it, it's entirely consistent.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Samhain said:
Would they do that? Probably not. But they will most likely kill thepiratebay and the like. They are required to tell customers, however, if any of those types of activities are ongoing. Not exactly sure how the FTC determines the authenticity of their policies, but I suspect audits would take place.
Click to expand...

They won't kill piratebay, they've been trying for years and have been entirely unable to. Piratebay's servers are in countries that simply ignore takedown requests. The only way to do it is for the U.S. military to invade these countries and then, piratebay would just move their servers. And even if they did, by some miracle, manage to take down piratebay, there are hundreds of other torrent sites already out there, plus others that would spring up to fill the void. To anyone who wants to do that, I wish them good luck.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

jonny5 said:
And then more competition from corporations who dont censor. Free market win.
Click to expand...

Private businesses may censor, but because the lines on which Internet traffic is carried operates is a limited resource, it comprises an oligopoly; hence, the rationale for outside regulation.

Libertarian way to handle this is to allow municipalities to enact conditions by which Tier 1/2 providers must adhere if they wish to run fiber optic or POTS lines through the communities.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Cardinal said:
Unfortunately this was inevitable. Internet providers have been pushing for this forever, and it was only a matter of time before they got their way.
Click to expand...

Change time to money, you got it.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Cephus said:
They won't kill piratebay, they've been trying for years and have been entirely unable to. Piratebay's servers are in countries that simply ignore takedown requests. The only way to do it is for the U.S. military to invade these countries and then, piratebay would just move their servers. And even if they did, by some miracle, manage to take down piratebay, there are hundreds of other torrent sites already out there, plus others that would spring up to fill the void. To anyone who wants to do that, I wish them good luck.
Click to expand...

He's talking about the isp's filtering content if the rules are changed to allow that. If your isp doesn't like thepiratebay they will make it so that you cannot connect to it through your internet service. So it won't matter if thepiratebay is up or not, you can't get to it.

Sadly this was bound to happen and eventually they will get everything they want. The internet will be just like many other pseudo "free market" industries. A few large corporations will control almost everything and nobody will be able to challenge their power. The libertarian dunces will be duped again into thinking this is "freedom". Ask yourself this, is the internet free and great now, with government regulation? yes it is. Ask yourself this same question in 20 years and tell me how the "free market" made the internet better. An internet structure that was largely created through government and taxpayer money, handed off to the private sector to milk dry as alllll theirs.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Verax said:
The internet will be just like many other pseudo "free market" industries.
Click to expand...

A free market cannot exist within a state. A free market is free from the state. I understand the need for you to think that a free makrte can exist with literally hundreds of thousands of regulations, personally and emotionally, but it makes no rational, logical, or reasonable sense.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Helix said:
more :

Feds Can't Enforce Net Neutrality: What This Means For You : All Tech Considered : NPR

the more i read about this, the more it pisses me off.
Click to expand...

My question is, in all fairness, don't we the tax payer own the damn ISP's anyway? Aren't we the one's that paid for the damn cable and towers through massive subsidies?

As far as I'm concerned open internet is WHAT is intrinsic about the internet. This ruling opens the door for a tremendous amount of corruption, and is purely antithetical to consumer protections.


Tim-
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

scatt said:
A free market cannot exist within a state. A free market is free from the state. I understand the need for you to think that a free makrte can exist with literally hundreds of thousands of regulations, personally and emotionally, but it makes no rational, logical, or reasonable sense.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. The "free market" in the U.S. as touted by the right and libertarians is a rigged market that allows the powerful to stomp anyone and everything that gets in their way under the guise of "freedom". Its a bait and switch and its happening again right here. The internet is just fine the way it is and it will be ruined, I guarantee it.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Verax said:
Yes, exactly. The "free market" in the U.S. as touted by the right and libertarians is a rigged market that allows the powerful to stomp anyone and everything that gets in their way under the guise of "freedom". Its a bait and switch and its happening again right here. The internet is just fine the way it is and it will be ruined, I guarantee it.
Click to expand...

I agree there is no free market because the state is heavily involved in it.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

I don't agree with the ruling, but can understand the basis for it. If every community has ready access to an ISP that does not restrict content, then the decision (if allowed to stand) may do little harm. If a large portion of the country only has access to a broadband service that is content restricted, then the current age of the internet as the best free speech medium in history will end. It was a great experiment, but politicians and big business rarely tolerate genuine freedom of expression for very long.

At the very least, broadband providers who restrict content should be prohibited from claiming that they provide access to the internet since it would false advertising. If it isn't the entire internet, it isn't the internet.

There is also hope that enough people will refuse to buy restricted content services that the providers will be driven to provide it. Since people willingly accept paying to watch advertising in movie theaters, that may be a slim hope. On the other hand, the old content restricted services like AOL died off when full internet access became readily available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom