• 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


Sorry, it is, according to you. They are my cables, and Comcast's cables. Therefore, you have no right to dictate what Comcast and I can do w/those cables, even if it runs through land you paid for.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Sorry, it is, according to you.

It is not a free market, that has been the argument from the beginning.
 
Get ready for corporate censorship of the internet.

Article is here.

From what I think I understand of the ruling, and I hope I'm wrong, is ISP who also offer cable TV/satellite subscription service may soon be able to legally block Internet access dependent competitors to cable TV like Netflix, Hulu and even youtube. Or it might possibly mean if you access those services, you have to pay more regardless of whether or not you use more bandwidth than a non-user. So in essence, it might not be about speech censorship where certain ideological perspectives might be banned but rather a backdoor ruling that has an inadvertent anti-competition pathway for ISPs that operate cable TV services to shutout online streaming TV. Again, I might be and hope I'm wrong.
 
From what I think I understand of the ruling, and I hope I'm wrong, is ISP who also offer cable TV/satellite subscription service may soon be able to legally block Internet access dependent competitors to cable TV like Netflix, Hulu and even youtube. Or it might possibly mean if you access those services, you have to pay more regardless of whether or not you use more bandwidth than a non-user. So in essence, it might not be about speech censorship where certain ideological perspectives might be banned but rather a backdoor ruling that has an inadvertent anti-competition pathway for ISPs that operate cable TV services to shutout online streaming TV. Again, I might be and hope I'm wrong.

You're not wrong, and ISPs are already doing it everyday. The only reason Skype works in the US, for instance, is because Microsoft shells out big $$ to ensure that Skype packets aren't selectively blocked.

What the ISPs need to recognize here is that the Internet is not just the bad ol' USA, but other countries have networks (i. e. fiber) through which IP traffic runs, and a content provider's market consists of those countries as well.

So if an ISP tries to block/slow a content provider's packets, that content provider will still claim a large market share in countries (i. e. Iceland, Norway) where its packets aren't slowed.

During the time Skype became big, it was still very much a European craze, and it was not until later that it became popular in the US, and only at that point can US ISPs step in to address it.

BOTTOM line: the ISPs geographic limitation gives it limited power to exploit its oligopoly to stifle competition from content providers :)
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Then why does Comcast get a right to free speech on its cables running on land (i. e. the platform) on which the public owns?

I dont think anyone is arguing free speech. But rather that the federal govt doesnt have to right to micromanage operations. Comcast or whoever isnt trying to censor, but to profit off high demand services.
 
What needs to happen is that liberal municipalities (i. e. Seattle, Berkeley, Boston, SF) need to enact immediate measures to disallow cable runs through those cities unless those cable cos. meet the city's strict terms.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

I dont think anyone is arguing free speech. But rather that the federal govt doesnt have to right to micromanage operations. Comcast or whoever isnt trying to censor, but to profit off high demand services.

Nope, Comcast is trying to prevent communities through which its cable runs from allowing it to enact terms and conditions on how that cable is to be used, in spite of the fact that the communities own the land.

You're claiming that an apt. complex owner dictating rules, regulations to tenants is micromanaging their lives--that's hardly the case. Property owners have a right to dictate terms re: the use of their land.
 
You're not wrong, and ISPs are already doing it everyday. The only reason Skype works in the US, for instance, is because Microsoft shells out big $$ to ensure that Skype packets aren't selectively blocked.

What the ISPs need to recognize here is that the Internet is not just the bad ol' USA, but other countries have networks (i. e. fiber) through which IP traffic runs, and a content provider's market consists of those countries as well.

So if an ISP tries to block/slow a content provider's packets, that content provider will still claim a large market share in countries (i. e. Iceland, Norway) where its packets aren't slowed.

During the time Skype became big, it was still very much a European craze, and it was not until later that it became popular in the US, and only at that point can US ISPs step in to address it.

BOTTOM line: the ISPs geographic limitation gives it limited power to exploit its oligopoly to stifle competition from content providers :)


Principle aside, I'd probably not care very much if cable and satellite gave their customers what they want in terms of service. There are two reasons people like Roku, Apple TV and Goople Play:

1. Its cheaper
2. You can get loads of content cable doesn't offer.

In an earlier phase in my life I was completely stoked that satellite TV (DirecTV and DISH Network) had the technical ability to bring distant city local TV to anywhere in America. Guess what? The TV industry got congress to outlaw it. I tried every loophole I could think of to get around it and even had select TV stations in New York and Los Angeles for a while but that eventually ended and in time I gave up.

Now I have Roku and discovered the Livestream channel that offers presently 40 or so local TV stations local newscasts from Boston to Hawaii in HD and growing. Now I'm waiting for the local news from TV stations around the English speaking world outside of the US, which I think is only a matter of time. Cable TV and satellite could have done what Roku is offering but never did.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

I dont think anyone is arguing free speech. But rather that the federal govt doesnt have to right to micromanage operations. Comcast or whoever isnt trying to censor, but to profit off high demand services.

And they will increase their profits via anti-competitive measures and censorship. Being able to control traffic like this allows ISPs to greatly harm startups and entrepreneurs.
 
Principle aside, I'd probably not care very much if cable and satellite gave their customers what they want in terms of service. There are two reasons people like Roku, Apple TV and Goople Play:

1. Its cheaper
2. You can get loads of content cable doesn't offer.

In an earlier phase in my life I was completely stoked that satellite TV (DirecTV and DISH Network) had the technical ability to bring distant city local TV to anywhere in America. Guess what? The TV industry got congress to outlaw it. I tried every loophole I could think of to get around it and even had select TV stations in New York and Los Angeles for a while but that eventually ended and in time I gave up.

Now I have Roku and discovered the Livestream channel that offers presently 40 or so local TV stations local newscasts from Boston to Hawaii in HD and growing. Now I'm waiting for the local news from TV stations around the English speaking world outside of the US, which I think is only a matter of time. Cable TV and satellite could have done what Roku is offering but never did.

RIP Roku 2002 - 2014
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Whoever circumvents it (runs their own pipes) will have to lobby the silly idiotic legislatures of the konservative (anti-freedom) states to be able to do it.

That may end up being true but I guarantee if the demand is there someone will fill it in some manner.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

TRANSLATION: you have no problem w/cable companies running cables through public taxpayer-funded land and then be subject to zero accountability from those said taxpayers.

Why did it need to be translated from English to English?
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

What evidence do you have that Comcast owns all the land through which its cables run? Please provide it for us below. Certainly you're not arguing that Comcast can do whatever it wants on land it doesn't own, right?

They don't need to own the land they only need an easement just like the electric company or water company has to maintain, replace or repair the lines.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Wonder how this will impact the functionality of virtual private networks/servers and onion routing.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

That may end up being true but I guarantee if the demand is there someone will fill it in some manner.

It takes billions of dollars to do it, you have to tear up streets, and that's still no guarantee you can actually avoid using lines run by the other ISPs due to the way internet traffic works. It's really weird when the Econ 101 libertarian crowd can't even correctly analyze the fundamental market forces that make up their belief structure. Limits to competition inherently mean limits to the effectiveness of the market and its ability to actually service true demand.

Wonder how this will impact the functionality of virtual private networks/servers and onion routing.


I guess a VPN could theoretically fool your ISP into thinking Netflix traffic isn't coming from Netflix, but an ISP is going to figure that sort of thing out.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Power companies shouldn't be able to regulate which appliances you are allowed to use. ISP's shouldn't be able to regulate which services you use.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Power companies shouldn't be able to regulate which appliances you are allowed to use. ISP's shouldn't be able to regulate which services you use.

"We see that your electricity is going into a Dell brand computer. Powering Dell brand computers comes with an additional service fee of $4.95 per kWh. Here's a link to Apple computers, which do not come with this additional fee! (because Apple paid us an arbitrary amount of money for that. Don't worry, I'm sure they didn't increase the price of their computers. They wouldn't pass on costs to customers, would they?)"

And some of the right-wingers here think this will be good for the market.
 
RIP Roku 2002 - 2014

I really hope not.

I do think they'll have an overseas market for a long time even if they're blocked in America.

This is so anti-trust. I can see how the courts will let this happen.

BTW: Although Roku might be in a David vs. Goliath situation, guess who else is in the game? Apple. I suppose we can hope Apple is a big enough player not to sit back and allow themselves to be bullied by the ISPs. At the same TV the Apple TV product isn't hugely important to the company compared to iPhones, iPads and computers and there could be a pick your battles issue.

 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Nope, Comcast is trying to prevent communities through which its cable runs from allowing it to enact terms and conditions on how that cable is to be used, in spite of the fact that the communities own the land.

You're claiming that an apt. complex owner dictating rules, regulations to tenants is micromanaging their lives--that's hardly the case. Property owners have a right to dictate terms re: the use of their land.

Except that in this case, the federal govt doesnt, because there are rules specifically prohibiting it. The federal govt doesnt own my street, nor are they allowed to. They dont own the air over my head either, or the internet. This is not about state, local or individual control, and soley about what the federal govt, through the FCC, can and cant do, should and shouldnt do.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Power companies shouldn't be able to regulate which appliances you are allowed to use. ISP's shouldn't be able to regulate which services you use.

Yes they should, so long as you choose to purchase electricity from them.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

"We see that your electricity is going into a Dell brand computer. Powering Dell brand computers comes with an additional service fee of $4.95 per kWh. Here's a link to Apple computers, which do not come with this additional fee! (because Apple paid us an arbitrary amount of money for that. Don't worry, I'm sure they didn't increase the price of their computers. They wouldn't pass on costs to customers, would they?)"

And some of the right-wingers here think this will be good for the market.

Im not a right winger, but I agree that FREEDOM is good for the market. If you dont like the power company, dont buy their power. A company that tried your tactics would quickly go out of business. Problem solved.

Sadly govt does exactly what youre saying, and people dont care. "we dont like cigarettes, light bulbs, coal, or oil. we are going to charge you extra, or ban them"
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Yes they should, so long as you choose to purchase electricity from them.

No, they shouldn't.

You don't choose who to purchase electricity from, BTW. You either purchase it from the one provider you are given or you don't get electricity. Even if government-sanctioned monopolies ended tomorrow, this wouldn't change.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

It takes billions of dollars to do it, you have to tear up streets, and that's still no guarantee you can actually avoid using lines run by the other ISPs due to the way internet traffic works.

Only if you assume that another will NEVER be invented. That's a bad assumption to make.
 
Re: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

Only if you assume that another will NEVER be invented. That's a bad assumption to make.

Aside from Deuce's valid argument that the amount of investment required to develop the infrastructure for a competitor is way too high for any investor to take on given the risk/return, you are also completely ignoring the fact that, should Deuce be wrong and someone actually does do this, you now have competition between...two companies. Some choice!
 
Back
Top Bottom