• 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!

Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

jonny5 said:
There you go, you have options. And how is it my problem that you choose to live in a rural area? Why should I pay for the FCCs 100million project to bring broadband to rural areas?

Rural Broadband Experiments | FCC.gov
Click to expand...

Um, I don't think quitting my job so I can go with satellite is really a viable option, personally.

My point wasn't to complain about having one option - it was an example of how in too many places there IS only one option, so if my ISP started throttling traffic from a site (for example, this one) I don't have a way to say "I'm going elsewhere".

Luckily, as far as I know, my ISP plans to keep net neutrality. It's a good ISP, though small. Not like Comcast and the others that serve the large cities...

In terms of rural broadband, my taxes go for all sorts of projects that don't benefit me. Highways in major metropolitan areas? why do I have to pay for them? they don't benefit me. Pay for your own highways if you're tired of congestion! you chose to live in that area - deal with the traffic or leave!

See how that works?
 
eohrnberger said:
The longer and harder the conflict goes on, the more both businesses damage themselves.
Click to expand...
...and to their customers. But who cares about that?


Once the government has it's hands in and on the Internet, in the form regulations, it'll never leave, or get out of it, and the government has proven itself far from being honest and trustworthy, especially this president, this administration and this congress.
Click to expand...
:roll:

I know, we've been over this before. However, the FCC has been regulating the airwaves for 80 years, and their regulatory role has not turned them into an arm of censorship.


I can imagine a back door mandate to block or slow down political opponents content. The recent Gruber videos? Undeliverable.
Click to expand...
:roll:

C'mon, man. Let's get real. The FCC is not going to order ISPs to cause congestion on YouTube because of a video that's embarrassing to the President. Net neutrality is not going to turn US into China.


The government has a track record of doing this.
Click to expand...
No, they really don't.

Unless of course you're incapable of viewing the federal government as some superbly integrated behemoth, where one federal agency that doesn't require any sort of access to classified information knows all about the most secret wiretapping programs operated by the NSA....


Telephone and mobile carriers are classified the same way, right? How often has the government demanded data from them and hidden it?
Click to expand...
The FCC was not involved, in any way shape or form, with the warrantless wiretapping. That was the NSA asking those companies to assist their surveillance efforts, and most (but not all) complied.

Oh, and a bunch of those taps? They were done on phones -- AND on Internet communications. Or do you imagine the NSA told AT&T "we'd like our own records of all the data flowing through your SF center, but just give us the phones, we won't collect Internet data because the FCC doesn't classify it as a utility." Yeesh

Classifying the Internet as a utility is not going to have any effect whatsoever on how law enforcement or surveillance operates. Net neutrality is most certainly not a privacy or surveillance issue.
 
Deuce said:
So the government is helping to provide a higher quality, lower cost option that the free market can't beat yet?

It's not about "need," right? If an alternative was of superior value, people would go with that even if they didn't "need" to. Get me something with the same speed and reliability at less cost, and absolutely I'll switch to that. I'll even accept a little bit slower at a greatly reduced cost, more bang for my buck.





And let me know when a substantial alternative appears in the market instead of a laboratory.
Click to expand...

All of those are such examples that private companies innovated.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Um, I don't think quitting my job so I can go with satellite is really a viable option, personally.

My point wasn't to complain about having one option - it was an example of how in too many places there IS only one option, so if my ISP started throttling traffic from a site (for example, this one) I don't have a way to say "I'm going elsewhere".

Luckily, as far as I know, my ISP plans to keep net neutrality. It's a good ISP, though small. Not like Comcast and the others that serve the large cities...

In terms of rural broadband, my taxes go for all sorts of projects that don't benefit me. Highways in major metropolitan areas? why do I have to pay for them? they don't benefit me. Pay for your own highways if you're tired of congestion! you chose to live in that area - deal with the traffic or leave!

See how that works?
Click to expand...

And what happens to your ISP when everyone stops paying them? See how that works? The purpose of govt is not to create competition, it is ony to provide a safe atmosphere for YOU to.
 
jonny5 said:
Not federal regulations, no.
Click to expand...


Really? You're going to make airlines - that operate in pretty much every state - have to follow state regulations that can very widely? and you'd make states ahve to have the expertise to determine all the rules?

So if Alaska says a pilot can fly for 10 hours and Missouri says 8 - what's an airline to do?

Flight regulations are a key example of what needs to be regulated at a federal level.
 
jonny5 said:
Another perfect example of what you get with regulation.

FCC seeks higher phone fees to fund broadband Internet in schools | TheHill

1.5bn more in taxes, to redistribute broadband to low income areas.
Click to expand...

Works for me. Why should kids in poor areas be disadvantaged by slow broadband?

And before you whine about people can move - do you like having food? might not want to empty out the rural areas. Also, why should any money from rural people go to funding highway expansion in metropolitan areas? Those people in the cities can move out.

The funding also benefits urban schools. So all those kids that will be applying for jobs - they need good broadband just like kids in rich districts.
 
Last edited:
paddymcdougall said:
Works for me. Why should kids in poor areas be disadvantaged by slow broadband?

And before you whine about people can move - do you like having food? might not want to empty out the rural areas. Also, why should any money from rural people go to funding highway expansion in metropolitan areas? Those people in the cities can move out.

The funding also benefits urban schools. So all those kids that will be applying for jobs - they need good broadband just like kids in rich districts.
Click to expand...

So you've been fooled into thinking the Government distributes ANYTHING then ?

That these tax increases gobwhere they lying Politicians tell you they're going to go ?
 
paddymcdougall said:
Really? You're going to make airlines - that operate in pretty much every state - have to follow state regulations that can very widely? and you'd make states ahve to have the expertise to determine all the rules?

So if Alaska says a pilot can fly for 10 hours and Missouri says 8 - what's an airline to do?

Flight regulations are a key example of what needs to be regulated at a federal level.
Click to expand...

Why even state regulations? The industry can regulate itself.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Works for me. Why should kids in poor areas be disadvantaged by slow broadband?

And before you whine about people can move - do you like having food? might not want to empty out the rural areas. Also, why should any money from rural people go to funding highway expansion in metropolitan areas? Those people in the cities can move out.

The funding also benefits urban schools. So all those kids that will be applying for jobs - they need good broadband just like kids in rich districts.
Click to expand...

Because they didnt pay for it. If they want fast broadband, they can pay for it, instead of making ME pay for it. Do I make them pay for MY fast broadband? No, I pay comcast for that.
 
jonny5 said:
Why even state regulations? The industry can regulate itself.
Click to expand...

Wow, thanks for the laugh. No, it can't. Well, not unless we're willing to accept a lot more plane crashes than we have currently.
 
jonny5 said:
Because they didnt pay for it. If they want fast broadband, they can pay for it, instead of making ME pay for it. Do I make them pay for MY fast broadband? No, I pay comcast for that.
Click to expand...


Yeah. Sorry you think helping out kids in poor schools is a bad use of your taxdollars. I think it's a great use of our taxdollars.
 
jonny5 said:
Why even state regulations? The industry can regulate itself.
Click to expand...

:lamo

And you, the passenger, are going to analyze the maintenance procedures, training procedures, and pilot duty times of the airline you're flying on?
 
paddymcdougall said:
Wow, thanks for the laugh. No, it can't. Well, not unless we're willing to accept a lot more plane crashes than we have currently.
Click to expand...

Yes it can, and it would do a better job. Lower prices, more competition, higher quality.
 
Deuce said:
:lamo

And you, the passenger, are going to analyze the maintenance procedures, training procedures, and pilot duty times of the airline you're flying on?
Click to expand...

No, im going to fly on airlines that have good track records and reviews from customers.

:2canadian
 
paddymcdougall said:
Yeah. Sorry you think helping out kids in poor schools is a bad use of your taxdollars. I think it's a great use of our taxdollars.
Click to expand...

I dont think youre actually sorry. And you can think what you want. You cant force others to comply.
 
jonny5 said:
I dont think youre actually sorry. And you can think what you want. You cant force others to comply.
Click to expand...

I can't. But I can make my opinions known to my representatives who can enforce fees.

Not getting all schools good broadband access means you are hobbling the group of students in the schools that can't afford it. They already have plenty of strikes against them.

And yes, I am sorry that you think helping out kids in poor schools is a bad use of your tax dollars. That means, in my opinion, that you have a set of values I don't agree with and I think you would be better off if you were more compassionate. So I am sorry for you.
 
jonny5 said:
Yes it can, and it would do a better job. Lower prices, more competition, higher quality.
Click to expand...

A co-worker of mine - his son died in a regional jet crash. It turned out rules for things like how long pilots had to sleep before flights and training/experience requirements were a lot looser than for the bigger jets. Airlines hadn't bothered toughening up their rules.

My friend and the families of others aboard the plane lobbied hard, and got the regulations tightened up. Because federal regulations are now tighter, those regional jets are a lot safer. The airlines didn't step up to that.

I admire your faith in the power of the market. But sadly it's misplaced. We do have more competition and lower prices since the deregulation of the airlines. But safety would have been compromised for profits if not for regulations in my opinion.
 
paddymcdougall said:
I can't. But I can make my opinions known to my representatives who can enforce fees.

Not getting all schools good broadband access means you are hobbling the group of students in the schools that can't afford it. They already have plenty of strikes against them.

And yes, I am sorry that you think helping out kids in poor schools is a bad use of your tax dollars. That means, in my opinion, that you have a set of values I don't agree with and I think you would be better off if you were more compassionate. So I am sorry for you.
Click to expand...

THats a false conclusion. Being against wealth redistribution does not mean someone is against kids.
 
paddymcdougall said:
A co-worker of mine - his son died in a regional jet crash. It turned out rules for things like how long pilots had to sleep before flights and training/experience requirements were a lot looser than for the bigger jets. Airlines hadn't bothered toughening up their rules.

My friend and the families of others aboard the plane lobbied hard, and got the regulations tightened up. Because federal regulations are now tighter, those regional jets are a lot safer. The airlines didn't step up to that.

I admire your faith in the power of the market. But sadly it's misplaced. We do have more competition and lower prices since the deregulation of the airlines. But safety would have been compromised for profits if not for regulations in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree. Its pretty clear that govt regulation has not made things better, in all areas of life. It simply raised the cost and stifled innovation.
 
jonny5 said:
Agree to disagree. Its pretty clear that govt regulation has not made things better, in all areas of life. It simply raised the cost and stifled innovation.
Click to expand...

That seems woefully simplistic. One of the most burdensome and expensive set of regulations deals with IP and patent law. Patenting an idea is extremely expensive and time consuming. Having to wade through all of it certainly stifles innovation. Maybe it should be reformed, but no one who innovates would support removing patents.
 
Mithros said:
That seems woefully simplistic. One of the most burdensome and expensive set of regulations deals with IP and patent law. Patenting an idea is extremely expensive and time consuming. Having to wade through all of it certainly stifles innovation. Maybe it should be reformed, but no one who innovates would support removing patents.
Click to expand...

Of course its simplistic, but it proves the point. Govt regulating the internet will end up just like government regulating property. Or air travel, or healthcare, or space. It will make it less frequent. The solution is to keep regulation as minimal as possible. Not to have the FCC involved in everything. The internet is what it is because govt has largely stayed out of it. Its the wild west.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom