• 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

Blue_State

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,411
Reaction score
2,228
Location
In a Blue State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
In the statement, and a video on the White House website, Mr. Obama urged the Federal Communications Commission to adopt the strictest set of neutrality rules possible and to treat consumer broadband service as a public utility, similar to telephone or power companies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/technology/obama-net-neutrality-fcc.html

I am absolutely for this. This will allow the little guy the same access as the big guy. Great stuff.
 
This was presented at a news cast this morning. From the president's letter, I got the impression that it doesn't support the FCC's regulation of charges to the customer for broadband access.

If it's not regulating the charges, what's it proposing regulation on? Content? Delivery of content?

Hmm. Is broadband content and content delivery really what we want the federal government regulating?

I'm really leery of this until I learn more as to what this proposal really ends up doing.

Isn't it really up to the network provider to manage their network to provide the best utility and service levels to their customers?

The example in the article is that it would prevent 'Netflix paying huge sums to broadband companies for faster access to their customers.' Is this needlessly penalizing companies that deliver high bandwidth services from effectively delivering them by paying some sort of premium? Does this mean that Netflix subscribers are going to have to wait a 1/2 hr for their movie to download?

I worry that as IT knowledgeable the government has proven itself, which is not at all (think of all the botched IT projects the government has conducted - including the ObamaCare web site), that here comes the typically needless, inefficient, ineffective, and counter productive government policies that never achieve their aims and always have disastrous unintended consequences.

FFS! The Internet is one of the few things that actually works with any sort of reliability and utility and now the government is going to screw that up too??
 
FFS! The Internet is one of the few things that actually works with any sort of reliability and utility and now the government is going to screw that up too??

From what I have read over the last few years, it is actually the private telecommunications companies that are wanting to screw people not the government per say. The whole Netflix thing is a power grab by the ISPs pure and simple. They refuse to expand their capacity to meet demand and must find alternatives to keep that demand down. On way is to slow down Netflix or other services, and hence force Netflix to pay more for content delivery.. this means the ISP not only makes your Netflix more expensive, but it is actually already taking far more from you as the consumer for what it is delivering... because the same rules also apply to you. In your contract it most likely says "unlimited" but in the small print it will clearly state "unless you use effects the quality of service of all".. which in geek speak means.. if you download too much, then we reserve the right to throttle you instead of expanding capacity. Comcast has been caught in doing it a few times.

What these internet companies want is a tiered pay system, so you pay to get access to Youtube and Netflix and that they dictate what sites you can visit..... that is something everyone should be fighting against, because that will mean even higher prices for internet services.

Now saying that, instead of "net neutrality", he could just force open up the market instead and you watch how fast the big companies stop their power grab when suddenly the have to actually compete. The US already has some of the highest prices for internet access in the industrialized world and it comes down to lack of competition. And because of this lack of competition, the tele companies think (and can) dictate quality of service and basically screw over the consumer on a daily basis as we have seen with Netflix. That Verizon was allowed to slow down Netflix and say it was not (utter lie)... just shows how much power these 4 or so main internet providers have in the US.
 
^^

The companies are attempting to screw the consumers and the startups. As startups will not have the funding to purchase the high speed lane, they will deliver their information more slowly, making it less likely they will be used.

Here a quick video on net neutrality.

 
What he really said was to reclassify the internet as a public utility. Or seize control of it.
I find it odd that he was perfectly good with giving away authority but now wants it.
If you think this is a boon you really need to think a little harder.
 
What he really said was to reclassify the internet as a public utility. Or seize control of it.
I find it odd that he was perfectly good with giving away authority but now wants it.
If you think this is a boon you really need to think a little harder.

I went to the video on wh.gov. He is recommending it go under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. I wonder what the negative impacts of that are? I just want the internet free. No government intervention. No FCC intervention.
 
Currently, receipt of high-speed broadband requires more power and stronger equipment in our homes, which is more expensive, and we pay for that.

When it comes to sending of high-speed broadband, does that not require more power and stronger equipment at the provider .. and isn't that more expensive for the provider?

If so, who's supposed to pay for that?

The provider?

Or the distributing user?

And, if not the distributing user, doesn't the provider eventually charge someone else to compensate?

Is this whole issue simply another "rob Peter to pay Paul" argument?

Are net neutrality supporters simply saying that they'd rather see the end-consumer in our homes pay for everything in our service rates rather than pay less and have the distributors pay more because they're afraid providers will slow down the speed we do pay for based on how much the distributor of content pays the provider?

Shouldn't the issue be that providers can't slow down what we the end-counsumer pay for for any reason?

I'm not sure the real argument here is framed right.

Though if there are multiple providers, I'd hate to think of the hassle it would be for distributing users to find all the providers and pay them this or that amount of money.

One day we may just have to have multiple providers in our homes to get all the content we get today.

I hope this issue works out in the best interest of the end-consumer.
 
From what I have read over the last few years, it is actually the private telecommunications companies that are wanting to screw people not the government per say. The whole Netflix thing is a power grab by the ISPs pure and simple. They refuse to expand their capacity to meet demand and must find alternatives to keep that demand down.

Increasing the capacity of a network is not an inexpensive thing. Lots of expense in the high speed data lines from the communications providers, and lots of engineering that has to go into the router and switch gear to support it. Any expansion of network capacity has to be cost justified by the ISP, based on their subscribers usage and their subscriber's charges. They just may have a situation where they can't afford to increase their network capacity.

So they have to manage their network to the best end result and service satisfaction of their customers (basically piss the fewest number of people off, as it's not too hard to change ISPs, so yes, they are competing for customers).

On way is to slow down Netflix or other services, and hence force Netflix to pay more for content delivery.. this means the ISP not only makes your Netflix more expensive, but it is actually already taking far more from you as the consumer for what it is delivering... because the same rules also apply to you. In your contract it most likely says "unlimited" but in the small print it will clearly state "unless you use effects the quality of service of all".. which in geek speak means.. if you download too much, then we reserve the right to throttle you instead of expanding capacity. Comcast has been caught in doing it a few times.

Again, you aren't going to get 10 lbs of crap through a 5 lbs pipe. Bandwidth abusers, those who ruin it for everyone else, should be throttled back somewhat. It's called managing your network resources to maintain the greatest number of satisfied customers.

What these internet companies want is a tiered pay system, so you pay to get access to Youtube and Netflix and that they dictate what sites you can visit..... that is something everyone should be fighting against, because that will mean even higher prices for internet services.

I really don't see IPSs charging more for access to any Internet web content. It's a billing headache for them, and would lead to intense customer dislike. I'm not seeing it as a viable action for the ISPs.

Now saying that, instead of "net neutrality", he could just force open up the market instead and you watch how fast the big companies stop their power grab when suddenly the have to actually compete.

Umm, they are competing. They are competing on a subscriber by subscribe basis. Bad Internet experience and the subscriber jumps ship to another ISP first chance they get. This'll lower the demand for that part of an ISPs network. IT's kinda self-regulating that way.

The US already has some of the highest prices for internet access in the industrialized world and it comes down to lack of competition. And because of this lack of competition, the tele companies think (and can) dictate quality of service and basically screw over the consumer on a daily basis as we have seen with Netflix. That Verizon was allowed to slow down Netflix and say it was not (utter lie)... just shows how much power these 4 or so main internet providers have in the US.

In each community, there is a process that the cable co / ISP / television provider has to go through to be allowed to enter that market. Most communities that are fairly populous have multiple providers to chose from. If there's a throttle to competition, this would be it. Once in the market, the providers compete intensely for subscribers, to the point of giving away packages of channels and high speeds for Internet, and throw telephone service in for free, for example.

Yes, Comcast, AT&T U-Verse, and a few others are the largest ones, but there are a lot of smaller ones too. I fail to see how you believe that there isn't competition, when there is. I prefer WideOpenWest (WOW), as they have excellent performance, excellent customer service, and I pay about the going rate for the service (channels and Internet speeds) that I get.

Suffice it to say, this sounds like the government suffering from the delusion that they can manage an ISPs network better than the ISP can themselves (with everything to gain by effective network management and everything to lose with ineffective network management), and I really don't think that this is reality. The government comes along with yet another 'one size fits all' idea and mentality, and is bound to corrupt, distort and damage yet another market of which they have academicians and their 'theories' about how it works, rather than practical experience as how it really works.

I'm not seeing anything compelling here for me to believe that this is a good idea.
 
Increasing the capacity of a network is not an inexpensive thing. Lots of expense in the high speed data lines from the communications providers, and lots of engineering that has to go into the router and switch gear to support it. Any expansion of network capacity has to be cost justified by the ISP, based on their subscribers usage and their subscriber's charges. They just may have a situation where they can't afford to increase their network capacity.

LOL not afford to increase their network capacity? HAHAH. Listen we are talking about some of the biggest ISPs on the planet with some of the biggest pots of cash of all companies out there. You would be correct if it was a small ISP, but Verizone, Cox, Comcast, AT&T and so on.. hell no.

I have seen this crap so many times before in Europe and because we have real competition here in the telecommunications market, then those who used such tactics would loose customers faster than you can read this sentence. And those doing it were often the biggest former state monopoly companies... which is a double irony because they are usually the ones with the 100 year maintenance and expansion contracts of the networks.

Again, you aren't going to get 10 lbs of crap through a 5 lbs pipe. Bandwidth abusers, those who ruin it for everyone else, should be throttled back somewhat. It's called managing your network resources to maintain the greatest number of satisfied customers.

No it depends on how you define bandwidth abusers and ISPs can define that any way they wish. I read a story about a woman on Comcast that was kicked off Comcast for watching too much Youtube.. I mean come on, even if you were running Youtube 24/7 then that would hardly set a blip on the radar ... this was before Youtube had HD btw.

I really don't see IPSs charging more for access to any Internet web content. It's a billing headache for them, and would lead to intense customer dislike. I'm not seeing it as a viable action for the ISPs.

Then why are they proposing it, in the material they have sent to congress to get approval.. they are after all writing the so called "net neutrality" proposals...

Umm, they are competing. They are competing on a subscriber by subscribe basis. Bad Internet experience and the subscriber jumps ship to another ISP first chance they get. This'll lower the demand for that part of an ISPs network. IT's kinda self-regulating that way.

So you are saying that you can switch from Comcast to say Cox in the same area? (let me give you a hint.. no you cant). Alternatives are DSL, who have to rely on outdated telephone systems, satellite which aint an alternative at all and not much else. There is no real competition in most US markets, especially when it comes to cable provided internet. Here in Spain, which is in the dark ages internet wise (relative speaking), I have the choice of at least 5 main ISPs, 3 cable operators, 4+ wireless (WiMax and 4G) providers, 3+ satellite providers and of course 3G mobile operators. Soon I will also have fiber optic connections (they digging up the road at the moment), which will add another 3+ providers easily.

In each community, there is a process that the cable co / ISP / television provider has to go through to be allowed to enter that market. Most communities that are fairly populous have multiple providers to chose from. If there's a throttle to competition, this would be it.

Yes it is.. and those "communities" are a huge majority of the US.

Once in the market, the providers compete intensely for subscribers, to the point of giving away packages of channels and high speeds for Internet, and throw telephone service in for free, for example.

Cant compete if there is only one option.. :)

Yes, Comcast, AT&T U-Verse, and a few others are the largest ones, but there are a lot of smaller ones too. I fail to see how you believe that there isn't competition, when there is. I prefer WideOpenWest (WOW), as they have excellent performance, excellent customer service, and I pay about the going rate for the service (channels and Internet speeds) that I get.

There is no competition in most of the US.. the main cities might have it, but out side those places.. hell no.

ISP lobby has already won limits on public broadband in 20 states | Ars Technica

There are so many limits on competition in the various states and they are being pushed by the telecommunications cartel.

Suffice it to say, this sounds like the government suffering from the delusion that they can manage an ISPs network better than the ISP can themselves (with everything to gain by effective network management and everything to lose with ineffective network management), and I really don't think that this is reality. The government comes along with yet another 'one size fits all' idea and mentality, and is bound to corrupt, distort and damage yet another market of which they have academicians and their 'theories' about how it works, rather than practical experience as how it really works.

I'm not seeing anything compelling here for me to believe that this is a good idea.

Well considering the US has some of the highest prices in the industrialized world and no where near the fastest average speeds, then something is seriously wrong....and dont use the "we are a big country" bull**** excuse, because it is irrelevant.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/technology/obama-net-neutrality-fcc.html

I am absolutely for this. This will allow the little guy the same access as the big guy. Great stuff.

What the hell is this? He's been President for six years and this has been an issue that has roiled during his Presidency. He waits until his administration is at its weakest to issue an opinion? He acts like he's just an informed observer... he's the President! There should be more than a damn casual opinion. This is another disappointment in a long list of disappointments.
 
What the hell is this? He's been President for six years and this has been an issue that has roiled during his Presidency. He waits until his administration is at its weakest to issue an opinion? He acts like he's just an informed observer... he's the President! There should be more than a damn casual opinion. This is another disappointment in a long list of disappointments.

He found out about it in the news like everyone else. At least he is going on record.
 
Currently, receipt of high-speed broadband requires more power and stronger equipment in our homes, which is more expensive, and we pay for that.

When it comes to sending of high-speed broadband, does that not require more power and stronger equipment at the provider .. and isn't that more expensive for the provider?

If so, who's supposed to pay for that?

The provider?

Or the distributing user?

And, if not the distributing user, doesn't the provider eventually charge someone else to compensate?

Is this whole issue simply another "rob Peter to pay Paul" argument?

Are net neutrality supporters simply saying that they'd rather see the end-consumer in our homes pay for everything in our service rates rather than pay less and have the distributors pay more because they're afraid providers will slow down the speed we do pay for based on how much the distributor of content pays the provider?

Shouldn't the issue be that providers can't slow down what we the end-counsumer pay for for any reason?

I'm not sure the real argument here is framed right.

Though if there are multiple providers, I'd hate to think of the hassle it would be for distributing users to find all the providers and pay them this or that amount of money.

One day we may just have to have multiple providers in our homes to get all the content we get today.

I hope this issue works out in the best interest of the end-consumer.

Net neutrality works out in the best interest of the end-consumer.

Removing net neutrality works out in the best interest of the ISP, at the expense of customers and content-creators.

So, you tell me whether you want to fight for Comcast or for That Guy With The Next Facebook Idea.

Here's the thing: You seem to be talking about net neutrality. "The ISP can't slow down what the user pays for for any reason." That's literally what net neutrality is. The end-user already paid for that bandwidth, why on earth should the ISP be able to charge extra for 10 gigabytes of Youtube instead of 10 gigabytes of Netflix? It doesn't cost them any more to deliver Youtube data than it does to deliver Netflix data.

edit: I suppose it's not technically "any reason," as ISPs are still allowed to throttle traffic as required to preserve the network capacity for other users. They just can't throttle one type of traffic selectively. Also, unlawful traffic is not covered. They can throttle or block pirated material or child porn or whatever, I doubt you'll see complaints there.

edit2: The distributor is already paying for traffic, by the way. Netflix spends a crapload of money to upload their content from Netflix servers to whichever user is watching that video. Similarly, when I run my Little Home Business Website I pay the ISP to transfer data from my server to users.

edit3: Sadly, there are physical and financial limitations to real competition among ISPs, which is part of why Net Neutrality is so important. If Sony makes a crappy, overpriced television, I can buy a Samsung. Free market works great under these circumstances. But redundant ISPs aren't so easy. It involves billions of dollars invested in laying cable, digging up streets, etc. The only significant New Competition in the ISP market lately has been Google. That's how big of a company you need to already be in order to break into the ISP business. Freaking Google.
 
Last edited:
Net neutrality works out in the best interest of the end-consumer.

Removing net neutrality works out in the best interest of the ISP, at the expense of customers and content-creators.

So, you tell me whether you want to fight for Comcast or for That Guy With The Next Facebook Idea.

edit3: Sadly, there are physical and financial limitations to real competition among ISPs, which is part of why Net Neutrality is so important. If Sony makes a crappy, overpriced television, I can buy a Samsung. Free market works great under these circumstances. But redundant ISPs aren't so easy. It involves billions of dollars invested in laying cable, digging up streets, etc. The only significant New Competition in the ISP market lately has been Google. That's how big of a company you need to already be in order to break into the ISP business. Freaking Google.

well said on who do you want to fight for! net neutrality is definitely best for end consumers.

In terms of competition - I live in a rural area; I have only DSL (no cable out as far as I go) at a blazing fast 4.5 mg download. (Ironic statement there). My option is satellite, but we download/upload too much stuff for satellite. I'm thinking about getting Dish Network as an add-on for certain purposes - still only 10 mg download, and over $600 more a year...
 
The best ting the gov can do to "protect" the consumer is allow all ISP's to compete in all markets. Right now in most cities, you have exactly one to choose from.


Tim-
 
Obama talking about neutrality in the media!

:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:


Right, neutrality to this guy is banning his "enemies" from publication.

Only Obama would be so arrogant as try to legislate "neutrality" as if its something that can be quantified. Did he even go to college?

I don't think you understand what net neutrality is.
 
The best ting the gov can do to "protect" the consumer is allow all ISP's to compete in all markets. Right now in most cities, you have exactly one to choose from.


Tim-

With a few exceptions, this is already the case. The reason there isn't much competition isn't government regulation, it's the realities of infrastructure on this scale. The cost to build a network like this is enormous, and there are limitations of physical space. You have to dig up streets to lay cable in an area. Can just anyone dig up the street at any time? Is that what we want?

Like electricity and water, there are physical problems with having real competition in internet infrastructure. Free markets work best, but not every service can actually function as a free market.
 
With a few exceptions, this is already the case. The reason there isn't much competition isn't government regulation, it's the realities of infrastructure on this scale. The cost to build a network like this is enormous, and there are limitations of physical space. You have to dig up streets to lay cable in an area. Can just anyone dig up the street at any time? Is that what we want?

Like electricity and water, there are physical problems with having real competition in internet infrastructure. Free markets work best, but not every service can actually function as a free market.

That is because the government helped put in place the system we have today. If the government was not involved in the process or at the very least considered the price tag when they did it perhaps the industry could easily be competitive.

Perhaps the government should take into account what the market can support without their assistance when they build something. You know, just throwing that out there. Now that they did what they usually do, which is act like a bunch of ****ing idiots that don't understand jack **** about basic things like what makes an industry viable, we have an industry completely unworkable in the private sector. GG dumb****s.
 
Last edited:
That is because the government helped put in place the system we have today. If the government was not involved in the process or at the very least considered the price tag when they did it perhaps the industry could easily be competitive.

Perhaps the government should take into account what the market can support without their assistance when they build something. You know, just throwing that out there.

No, the industry cannot easily be competitive. It takes billions to build an ISP network.
 
No, the industry cannot easily be competitive. It takes billions to build an ISP network.

No ****. That was my entire point.
 
It doesn't cost billions to start an ISP because of any government action.

Who do you think helped to put the network in place? Hint: The government.
 
Back
Top Bottom