• 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!

FCC’s grab for new regulatory power could go beyond broadband providers

net neutrality should be law. without it, startups and sites like DP are at a major disadvantage, as they cannot afford to buy preferential treatment. the internet is the single coolest communications tool ever invented, and the ISPs should not be allowed to ruin it.
 
Mithros said:
As I said previously:
By definition, a Tier 1 network is an IP network which conducts traffic via settlement-free interconnection. There are seven of them in the US: L3, TeliaSOnera, CenturyLink, Vodafone, Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T. ISPs are Tier 2 and Tier 3 networks. That means your traffic is going to often go Source->T3->T2->T1->T2->T3->You.
Click to expand...

And as I said, those are agreements between big corporations, not govt. Youre original comment was "The internet runs mainly on public networks on opensource software." Its not.
 
jonny5 said:
And as I said, those are agreements between big corporations, not govt. Youre original comment was "The internet runs mainly on public networks on opensource software." Its not.
Click to expand...
I'll revise, regulated, settlement free networks and open source software.

Extortion is also an agreement.

Everyone pays for the bandwidth they use. Net neutrality isn't about someone not paying for upstream bandwidth. Netflix pays money to connect to the internet at a certain rate. You pay money to connect to the internet at a certain rate. This is a third party saying that netflix needs to pay them money or else they'll delay their service .

You're in IT and don't understand the implications?
 
Mithros said:
I'll revise, regulated, settlement free networks and open source software.

Extortion is also an agreement.

Everyone pays for the bandwidth they use. Net neutrality isn't about someone not paying for upstream bandwidth. Netflix pays money to connect to the internet at a certain rate. You pay money to connect to the internet at a certain rate. This is a third party saying that netflix needs to pay them money or else they'll delay their service .

You're in IT and don't understand the implications?
Click to expand...

I understand the implications when you let govt get a foot in the door. Except by now they are living your house rent free. Im not against consumers pushing for net neutrality. Im against govt forcing it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Do you approve of government officials re-interpreting laws passed by the legislative branch of our government and signed by the President to promote their own agenda's?
Click to expand...

 
jonny5 said:
I understand the implications when you let govt get a foot in the door. Except by now they are living your house rent free. Im not against consumers pushing for net neutrality. Im against govt forcing it.
Click to expand...

A government foot in the door? That's the outrage?

A startup comes up with a great innovative idea. They pay money for research and development. They beta test, revise, and perfect. Then they pay for server farms and all the bandwidth they need. Eventually their product catches on and starts to make money.

Comcast sees that and says hey... we want a piece. They go to the startup and say look, lots of people are using our service to get to you..... Sooo either you pay us money or else we're going to degrade the performance of your stuff on our network.

Obviously people have to pay for their bandwidth. But you shouldn't have to pay twice, to a third party..especially when that third party essentially has a monopoly on the service.

What leverage does a consumer have? None. This is nothing more than a shamless money grab by people who don't innovate to extort money from the people who do.
 
Mithros said:
A government foot in the door? That's the outrage?

A startup comes up with a great innovative idea. They pay money for research and development. They beta test, revise, and perfect. Then they pay for server farms and all the bandwidth they need. Eventually their product catches on and starts to make money.

Comcast sees that and says hey... we want a piece. They go to the startup and say look, lots of people are using our service to get to you..... Sooo either you pay us money or else we're going to degrade the performance of your stuff on our network.

Obviously people have to pay for their bandwidth. But you shouldn't have to pay twice, to a third party..especially when that third party essentially has a monopoly on the service.

What leverage does a consumer have? None. This is nothing more than a shamless money grab by people who don't innovate to extort money from the people who do.
Click to expand...

The consumer has the ultimate leverage: money. Comcast can not operate without customers. They cant get customers unless they give them something they want.
 
jonny5 said:
The consumer has the ultimate leverage: money. Comcast can not operate without customers. They cant get customers unless they give them something they want.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how leverage works.
 
jonny5 said:
The consumer has the ultimate leverage: money. Comcast can not operate without customers. They cant get customers unless they give them something they want.
Click to expand...

It's all oligarchy and forced local monopoly through government law as it stands. The cable and internet companies experience significant benefit from law and government legislation which prevents free market capitalism and ensures near local monopoly. There's a reason America pays more for and has slower speeds of the internet than almost any other industrialized, modern country.
 
Ikari said:
It's all oligarchy and forced local monopoly through government law as it stands. The cable and internet companies experience significant benefit from law and government legislation which prevents free market capitalism and ensures near local monopoly. There's a reason America pays more for and has slower speeds of the internet than almost any other industrialized, modern country.
Click to expand...

Thats an argument in favor of less govt, not more. And it looks like we're near the top to me.

Download Speed by Country | Net Index from Ookla
 
jonny5 said:
Ad hominem.
Click to expand...

It's not Ad hominem.. You claim that "The consumer has the ultimate leverage: money. Comcast can not operate without customers. ". I replied : I don't think you understand how leverage works. Ad hominem is a way of arguing a point because of an attack. ie... i'm right because you're "<insert insult here>". This is simply questioning your understanding of a term; one I don't think you understand.

isp-speed.png


Most people have only one, maybe two reasonably high bandwidth ISPs to choose from. The only way a consumer has leverage is if the consumer has a choice to pick an net neutral ISP. Clearly you can see how as soon as the ban was lifted, Comcast, ATT, and Verizon began purposefully slowing down traffic they didn't like. So where's the leverage?
 
Mithros said:
It's not Ad hominem.. You claim that "The consumer has the ultimate leverage: money. Comcast can not operate without customers. ". I replied : I don't think you understand how leverage works. Ad hominem is a way of arguing a point because of an attack. ie... i'm right because you're "<insert insult here>". This is simply questioning your understanding of a term; one I don't think you understand.


Most people have only one, maybe two reasonably high bandwidth ISPs to choose from. The only way a consumer has leverage is if the consumer has a choice to pick an net neutral ISP. Clearly you can see how as soon as the ban was lifted, Comcast, ATT, and Verizon began purposefully slowing down traffic they didn't like. So where's the leverage?
Click to expand...

Saying nothing more than "I dont think you understand" is the same as saying 'youre dumb'. So yes, its an ad hominem.
 
StringBean said:
I think you might have it backwards. Net neutrality prevents tiered access to internet content. It states that you get equal access to every website on the internet by your ISP, and that your ISP cannot block access to content. Without it, Comcast can decide to shut off all of its users' access to competitor content, effectively censoring the internet.
Click to expand...

It will result in tiered charges. A buy as you go plan...Dont take my word for it, listen to what Comcast, Time-Warner, Verizon etc etc etc are telling you will happen if this goes through.

The ISP's are telling you that if they are not allowed to throttle speeds to some sites (video streaming, live on line gaming etc), there wont be enough band-with to handle the flow of information.

There will be tiered charging for access. Argue it all you want to....I dont care. This is coming directly from the ISP's mouths.


And the "Comcast can decide to shut off all of its users' access to competitor content, effectively censoring the internet." is addressed in the fair access act. Its already law that they can not block content....slow it down to regulate traffic yes, but not block it.
 
Imnukingfutz said:
It will result in tiered charges. A buy as you go plan...Dont take my word for it, listen to what Comcast, Time-Warner, Verizon etc etc etc are telling you will happen if this goes through.

The ISP's are telling you that if they are not allowed to throttle speeds to some sites (video streaming, live on line gaming etc), there wont be enough band-with to handle the flow of information.

There will be tiered charging for access. Argue it all you want to....I dont care. This is coming directly from the ISP's mouths.


And the "Comcast can decide to shut off all of its users' access to competitor content, effectively censoring the internet." is addressed in the fair access act. Its already law that they can not block content....slow it down to regulate traffic yes, but not block it.
Click to expand...

You know what Comcast did to Netflix. They throttled users of the service as extortion to get Netflix to pay Comcast money. And that is whom you're asking me to trust?
 
Helix said:
net neutrality should be law. without it, startups and sites like DP are at a major disadvantage, as they cannot afford to buy preferential treatment. the internet is the single coolest communications tool ever invented, and the ISPs should not be allowed to ruin it.
Click to expand...

It's not about the ISP's, it's about control, and this is just a way for the government to control the internet.
 
MrVicchio said:
It's not about the ISP's, it's about control, and this is just a way for the government to control the internet.
Click to expand...

i'm fine with them preventing a tiered internet. the site you're bitching on right now would be in the slow lane, and startups would have an even more significant disadvantage.

**** that.
 
Helix said:
i'm fine with them preventing a tiered internet. the site you're bitching on right now would be in the slow lane, and startups would have an even more significant disadvantage.

**** that.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's really not about ISP's and money is all I'm saying, it's about government and power.
 
MrVicchio said:
Yes, but it's really not about ISP's and money is all I'm saying, it's about government and power.
Click to expand...

i support legislated net neutrality. the big players should not be allowed to throttle the startups, because they WILL do exactly that. you also failed to absorb the fact that the site you are using to bitch about this on would be in the slow lane.

again, **** that.
 
MrVicchio said:
It's not about the ISP's, it's about control, and this is just a way for the government to control the internet.
Click to expand...

I prefer to have the internet controlled by our representational democracy based government than by a handful of corporations. If you like being forced to pay over $60 for cable TV just to get one channel such as HBO, you'll love what the ISPs will do to the internet.
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
I prefer to have the internet controlled by our representational democracy based government than by a handful of corporations.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA The same ones spying on your ass changing laws to fit their pocket books and reelection campaigns??
 
MrVicchio said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA The same ones spying on your ass changing laws to fit their pocket books and reelection campaigns??
Click to expand...

I can understand not trusting the government. I don't understand trusting the handful of corporations with a near-monopoly on providing internet services.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom