• 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

I don't. If they do, it creates an opportunity for someone to setup a competing, open infrastructure......for a price. :)

Umm, not really....

First, they're not likely to get someone starting a competing, open infrastructure with Cable because regulations in place for ages probably makes Comcast your only CABLE provider. So do you want that really high speed access through your cable provider? Well, nope...can't have that.

Second, depending where you're at your other options may be limited as well. Many places you're stuck with one phone company and can go with the generally slower DSL service. You may or may not have access to Satelite internet, largely depending on your location. You could go with a cell company if you have good reception, though that will potentially give you much slower connections or a severely limited amount of usage.

Third, it fails to understand that ultimately even if you COULD start up small competing companies, they'd still likely be piggybacking off the Teir 1 company, Comcast's, backbone in the area and thus still subject to the same throttling issues as if you were directly working with Comcast. Mind you, backbone that we the people largely subsidized and paid for.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

I don't. If they do, it creates an opportunity for someone to setup a competing, open infrastructure......for a price. :)

I this close to canceling Comcast just for charging me too much and not allowing me to choose channels a la carte. I hope they try this just to push me over the edge. ATT uverse has a much better interface, but I cant get them. I download all the shows now anyway. All i need is live tv.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Umm, not really....

First, they're not likely to get someone starting a competing, open infrastructure with Cable because regulations in place for ages probably makes Comcast your only CABLE provider. So do you want that really high speed access through your cable provider? Well, nope...can't have that.

Second, depending where you're at your other options may be limited as well. Many places you're stuck with one phone company and can go with the generally slower DSL service. You may or may not have access to Satelite internet, largely depending on your location. You could go with a cell company if you have good reception, though that will potentially give you much slower connections or a severely limited amount of usage.

Third, it fails to understand that ultimately even if you COULD start up small competing companies, they'd still likely be piggybacking off the Teir 1 company, Comcast's, backbone in the area and thus still subject to the same throttling issues as if you were directly working with Comcast. Mind you, backbone that we the people largely subsidized and paid for.

And then someone will invent something better. There has to be demand.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

And then someone will invent something better. There has to be demand.

And people can frolic around hand in hand under a rainbow while gum drops fall from the sky.

Look at your own post above. How long has there been "Demand" for something better than the ****ty, horrible, raping us in the ass cable company structures? Decades. And even now, there's been little significant "invention" of "something better" in large part because cable has such a devastating and complete hold Cable has on the situation.

Oh, and shocker…some of the few inventions that actually have been made that, almost by accident, helped that problem? Things like Netflix, Hulu? Guess what they’re dependent on…oh right, the same internet that said cable providers control.

You have first hand, indisputable, clear example of how that principle you just suggested DOESN’T WORK in the realm of the Telecoms under our current existing paradigm. And that’s in the modern day with the free and clear sharing of ideas and information leveraging the power of the internet; not a situation where said invention would need to be done in a boxed off walled garden that your telecom decides is the corner of the internet you need.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Yes, in so much as it is a federal law.

I see...welp, thanks for at least seeing the possibilities. By the way. If a person incites a riot in a theater by falsely screaming, "FIRE" in a theater. It won't be the FEDs that show up to make an arrest.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

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.

And of course you understand that recognizing the existence and supporting that right doesn't mean that you can't disagree with the decision made, right?
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

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.

Well, no. They can restrict traffic to the servers at any firewall they control between you and Pirate Bay. Likewise they can insert lines into their ISP EULA saying you are not allowed to visit Pirate Bay and cut off your internet for going to Pirate bay.

The only reason why they needed Pirate Bay servers taken offline before is because they weren't allowed to restrict traffic to the servers by law. Now they can.

I am not taking a stand one way or the other on this other than to say that those who try to make this a 1st Amendment issue don't seem to understand the 1st Amendment.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

And people can frolic around hand in hand under a rainbow while gum drops fall from the sky.

Look at your own post above. How long has there been "Demand" for something better than the ****ty, horrible, raping us in the ass cable company structures? Decades. And even now, there's been little significant "invention" of "something better" in large part because cable has such a devastating and complete hold Cable has on the situation.

Oh, and shocker…some of the few inventions that actually have been made that, almost by accident, helped that problem? Things like Netflix, Hulu? Guess what they’re dependent on…oh right, the same internet that said cable providers control.

You have first hand, indisputable, clear example of how that principle you just suggested DOESN’T WORK in the realm of the Telecoms under our current existing paradigm. And that’s in the modern day with the free and clear sharing of ideas and information leveraging the power of the internet; not a situation where said invention would need to be done in a boxed off walled garden that your telecom decides is the corner of the internet you need.

There isnt enough demand though, which is why there is no competition. And theres nothing stopping Netflix from developing their own distrubution method. You might have well said they cant compete with productions studios, until they did.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

So long as there isnt a local law protecting speech either, then yes. The point here is that people decided there would be no limits on speech (federally, when they consented to be governed by the constitution. Until they amend it, there are no limits. Which again is not reality. Govt does whatever it wants because it has bigger guns.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

I don't. If they do, it creates an opportunity for someone to setup a competing, open infrastructure......for a price. :)

No, it doesn't. Because Comcast owns all the lines in your neighborhood so anyone wanting to "compete" has to go through them anyway.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

There isnt enough demand though, which is why there is no competition.

If you're telling me there's not enough demand at this point to find an alternative to Cable Television, then using the argument "YAY! Net Neutrality is destroyed and that's a good thing because it will cause the private sector to come up with an alternative for distribution of internet access!" is not only exceedingly weak but fully laughable. If Cable Television isn't problematic enough or sparks enough demand for something better at this point I have no reason the internet equivilent to that process is going to reach your imagined level of "demand".

pathetically repeating tired rhetoric while ignoring reality is wonderful and all, but is no different than you saying "Maybe a Unicorn will appear and shoot internet access out of it's ass" because it's about as realistic.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

If you're telling me there's not enough demand at this point to find an alternative to Cable Television, then using the argument "YAY! Net Neutrality is destroyed and that's a good thing because it will cause the private sector to come up with an alternative for distribution of internet access!" is not only exceedingly weak but fully laughable. If Cable Television isn't problematic enough or sparks enough demand for something better at this point I have no reason the internet equivilent to that process is going to reach your imagined level of "demand".

pathetically repeating tired rhetoric while ignoring reality is wonderful and all, but is no different than you saying "Maybe a Unicorn will appear and shoot internet access out of it's ass" because it's about as realistic.

Quite a few people take Econ 101 and think it makes them experts on economic theory. We call those people "libertarians."

It's akin to taking Physics 101 and believing yourself qualified to be an engineer.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

And people can frolic around hand in hand under a rainbow while gum drops fall from the sky.

Look at your own post above. How long has there been "Demand" for something better than the ****ty, horrible, raping us in the ass cable company structures? Decades. And even now, there's been little significant "invention" of "something better" in large part because cable has such a devastating and complete hold Cable has on the situation.

Oh, and shocker…some of the few inventions that actually have been made that, almost by accident, helped that problem? Things like Netflix, Hulu? Guess what they’re dependent on…oh right, the same internet that said cable providers control.

You have first hand, indisputable, clear example of how that principle you just suggested DOESN’T WORK in the realm of the Telecoms under our current existing paradigm. And that’s in the modern day with the free and clear sharing of ideas and information leveraging the power of the internet; not a situation where said invention would need to be done in a boxed off walled garden that your telecom decides is the corner of the internet you need.


The irony here is that you BOTH seem to think that there is some place where people frolic hand in hand under rainbows while gum drops falling from the sky. Johnny 5 thinks we will get there regardless, you think corporations have locked the gates that lead there.

Neither position is entirely accurate or entirely inaccurate. As someone who works in telecommunications the idea that the last ten years has been limited advancement is absurd, though. Telecommunications and computing have been shattering theoretical limits on computing very regularly. 15 years ago the internet was accessible to a fraction of the worlds population at the speed of 56kbps. Today it reaches almost every square inch of the world with the proper equipment that is getting cheaper by the day at speeds that are orders of magnitude faster than 56kbps.

If this is restrained growth then I fear you will never be satisfied.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

The irony here is that you BOTH seem to think that there is some place where people frolic hand in hand under rainbows while gum drops falling from the sky. Johnny 5 thinks we will get there regardless, you think corporations have locked the gates that lead there.

Neither position is entirely accurate or entirely inaccurate. As someone who works in telecommunications the idea that the last ten years has been limited advancement is absurd, though. Telecommunications and computing have been shattering theoretical limits on computing very regularly. 15 years ago the internet was accessible to a fraction of the worlds population at the speed of 56kbps. Today it reaches almost every square inch of the world with the proper equipment that is getting cheaper by the day at speeds that are orders of magnitude faster than 56kbps.

If this is restrained growth then I fear you will never be satisfied.

Take a look at internet access in other countries and get back to me.

The ISPs, by the nature of the internet, control the gates. There are severe problems with infrastructure that prevent reasonable competition.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

As someone who works in telecommunications the idea that the last ten years has been limited advancement is absurd, though.

I'm confused as to why you're referencing me and then say this as some kind of evidence that I'm also being unrealistic considering I've never said in any fashion that telecommunications, and specifically technology/computers has had limited advancement.

I stated that over the past 2 decades as people have been complaining about Cable Television and how it works that there's been limited actual significant advancement in creating worthwhile alternatives. And that based on that, it's unreasonable to think that if internet access begins to look like Cable TV packages that we're magically going to have some kind of "free market" worth while viable alternative pop up.

I have no issue with how internet access has been growing and expanding...it's a wonderful thing and has been going at a great pace. But it's largely all based on the same foundational backbone, which is what makes the potential for a handful of companies to significantly impact how data flows on those back bones so troublesome. And you highlight one of the points; many of the advancements in telecommunications has came from the telecommunications industry...it's unreasonable to expect that any of the major players are going to spend the resources and time to find an "alternative" method of data transfer if they've gotten full controll over the current method. Just like there's no big reason for Cable Companies to try and come up with significant "alternative" methods of cable television distribution.

As to the difference between Johnny5 and I....there's little evidence of a viable, substantial, true alternative to cable television so there's little reason to believe there'd magically be such for internet data transfer. On my side, there's actual, verifiable, factual examples of Telecoms specifically doing or proposing the type of throttling and walling off that I'm suggesting would occur. That's not imaginary, that's reality.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Take a look at internet access in other countries and get back to me.

The ISPs, by the nature of the internet, control the gates. There are severe problems with infrastructure that prevent reasonable competition.

Would you care to make an actual argument regarding internet access in other countries rather than a vague statement?
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

No, it doesn't. Because Comcast owns all the lines in your neighborhood so anyone wanting to "compete" has to go through them anyway.

Unless someone runs new lines, hence my original statement of "competing open infrastructure".

Mind you, backbone that we the people largely subsidized and paid for.

Are you refering to E-Rate subsidies, or something else?

In either case, using Comcast as an example, how much did they spend on the backbone and how much was paid via subsidies?
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

I'm confused as to why you're referencing me and then say this as some kind of evidence that I'm also being unrealistic considering I've never said in any fashion that telecommunications, and specifically technology/computers has had limited advancement.

Because you were responding to a statement that innovation would create competition in the telecom market and you equating that to rainbows and raining gum drops. Johnny5's point is valid and shouldn't be dismissed so quickly as wishful thinking.

I stated that over the past 2 decades as people have been complaining about Cable Television and how it works that there's been limited actual significant advancement in creating worthwhile alternatives. And that based on that, it's unreasonable to think that if internet access begins to look like Cable TV packages that we're magically going to have some kind of "free market" worth while viable alternative pop up.

Well sure, but when one company shuts off access to its customers it creates a business opportunity for another company. I think the bigger threat would come from exclusivity deals rather than simple blocking and tiering. The latter would be a headache to manage.

I have no issue with how internet access has been growing and expanding...it's a wonderful thing and has been going at a great pace. But it's largely all based on the same foundational backbone, which is what makes the potential for a handful of companies to significantly impact how data flows on those back bones so troublesome. And you highlight one of the points; many of the advancements in telecommunications has came from the telecommunications industry...it's unreasonable to expect that any of the major players are going to spend the resources and time to find an "alternative" method of data transfer if they've gotten full controll over the current method. Just like there's no big reason for Cable Companies to try and come up with significant "alternative" methods of cable television distribution.

Well of course not, they are interested in technology that makes them cheaper and faster, and good for them. Companies like Google would be the ones driving the alternative technologies.

I was thinking about this the other day as I set up my new Chromecast on my TV. I was freaked out for a second when I turned on my TV and Chromecast was asking me to go to a website to configure the device. When I went to the site the screen on the TV immediately changed to acknowledge I have visited the website and asked me if I wanted to set up the internet connection on the Chromecast. How was it communicating with the outside world if the internet wasn't configured?! :p
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Because you were responding to a statement that innovation would create competition in the telecom market and you equating that to rainbows and raining gum drops. Johnny5's point is valid and shouldn't be dismissed so quickly as wishful thinking.

No, I was responding to a statement that there should be no worry about the internet being substantially throttled because it would lead to innovative alternative solutions. And it's not a valid point, as we have a great analog example of significant displeasure with a current telecom standard and little significant and viable alternatives springing from it.

Well of course not, they are interested in technology that makes them cheaper and faster, and good for them. Companies like Google would be the ones driving the alternative technologies.

And I have no issue with them looking for things that make it cheaper and faster for them....unless it's at the deteriment of the consumer, and is at our detriment in large part because of the power regulations already in place bestow upon those companies.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

If you're telling me there's not enough demand at this point to find an alternative to Cable Television, then using the argument "YAY! Net Neutrality is destroyed and that's a good thing because it will cause the private sector to come up with an alternative for distribution of internet access!" is not only exceedingly weak but fully laughable. If Cable Television isn't problematic enough or sparks enough demand for something better at this point I have no reason the internet equivilent to that process is going to reach your imagined level of "demand".

pathetically repeating tired rhetoric while ignoring reality is wonderful and all, but is no different than you saying "Maybe a Unicorn will appear and shoot internet access out of it's ass" because it's about as realistic.

So long as people are continuing to pay comcast millions of dollars, comcast will not change. Economics 101.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Quite a few people take Econ 101 and think it makes them experts on economic theory. We call those people "libertarians."

It's akin to taking Physics 101 and believing yourself qualified to be an engineer.

Ad hominem.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

The irony here is that you BOTH seem to think that there is some place where people frolic hand in hand under rainbows while gum drops falling from the sky. Johnny 5 thinks we will get there regardless, you think corporations have locked the gates that lead there.

Neither position is entirely accurate or entirely inaccurate. As someone who works in telecommunications the idea that the last ten years has been limited advancement is absurd, though. Telecommunications and computing have been shattering theoretical limits on computing very regularly. 15 years ago the internet was accessible to a fraction of the worlds population at the speed of 56kbps. Today it reaches almost every square inch of the world with the proper equipment that is getting cheaper by the day at speeds that are orders of magnitude faster than 56kbps.

If this is restrained growth then I fear you will never be satisfied.

I think that the market works best when its left alone. That govt sometimes makes things better is the exception, not the rule. But as you allude, thats an ideological argument. If you have faith in govt, then that justifies what they do. If you have faith in freedom and the individual, then that justifies what they do. Im in the latter camp. I dont trust govt to get nearly anything right.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

So long as people are continuing to pay comcast millions of dollars, comcast will not change. Economics 101.

Do you agree that monopolies or near-monopolies are detrimental to the function of the market?
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Do you agree that monopolies or near-monopolies are detrimental to the function of the market?

No, I think they are natural, temporary, and superficial. There are no real monopolies except maybe govt.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Do you agree that monopolies or near-monopolies are detrimental to the function of the market?

State created ones are, sure.
 
Back
Top Bottom