• 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!

No fast or slow lanes for Internet? New rules proposed

tacomancer said:
The subsidies were necessary to keep our infrastructure building out fast enough to keep pace with other countries. That cat was necessary at the time and it being out of the bag is the way it is. I would be perfectly fine if we passed a different law stating that states and local governments cannot give exclusion rights to ISP cabling and any cabling that was subsidized needs to be leased out at cost +5% to competitors.

This could cause two things
1. new nonsubsidized cabling would be built ASAP
2. Other companies can enter into the forey long enough to build up capital to compete.

The real end result would be a surge in fiber optics lines at the last mile and lowered prices in about five to ten years.

In this situation, forcing the market to be the market would be the better choice I think, but title 2 is the less ballsy solution and governments can be cowards.
Click to expand...

A business needs to have their own infrastructure that they built with their own money or else more than likely the entire industry must remain in the care of the state as the infrastructure is built with government finances in mind. The internet as it stands is not a marketable solution because the costs are too high and any potential free competition is non-existent.

Saying that, If you ask me the companies can not claim they own the cables because they did not build them with their own capital, so in my mind they have no leg to stand on to stop division of access to any cables they happen to be using.
 
tacomancer said:
I agree, title 2 is better than a tiered internet, but this is what I would like to see instead.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ternet-new-rules-proposed.html#post1064278086

As for the monthly minimum for water, there is a high static costs for a treatment facility that stay the same even if the amount of water they treat is below their optimal capacity.
Click to expand...

When I see the postal service (USPS) charge the same rate for me paying my utility bill as they charge the utility for sending it to me then I will get on board. ;)
 
tacomancer said:
If we had real competition in the market, then consumers would have options beyond being screwed or no high speed internet. That is the current situation that exists for most users and that is an unreasonable choice.
Click to expand...

I am convinced that people are just so locked into having a cable come through their wall, that they do not even know what choices are out there available to them. I live in PoDunkyville and I have a plethora of internet options. Comcast is my only cable option, but it is not my only potential source for internet.
 
Henrin said:
A business needs to have their own infrastructure that they built with their own money or else more than likely the entire industry must remain in the care of the state as the infrastructure is built with government finances in mind. The internet as it stands is not a marketable solution because the costs are too high and any potential free competition is non-existent.

Saying that, If you ask me the companies can not claim they own the cables because they did not build them with their own capital, so in my mind they have no leg to stand on to stop division of access to any cables they happen to be using.
Click to expand...

There has been cabling that has and has not been subsidized. I would be ok with nonsubsidized segments being 100% up to the ISPs on their policy. That's just the right thing to do. But much more likely is that they wouldn't treat them differently than the other 85% or so of the subsidized cabling (by my estimates) due to PR reasons. If nontiered internet is normal and most of the market can respond to things as the market is supposed to, the ISPs lose a lot of negotiating power and the playing field is much more tilted to the regular person (which is also the right thing to do, regular people should have a lot more negotiating power than they currently do in our heavily capital driven economy, but technology is what it is right now and its the biggest reason wages are down, not politics).

The fact is ,the ISPs may own the cabling, but they had a lot of government help in building that cabling and that help should come with strings of open access like we had in the 90s.

The ISPs are in a position where they can roll out fiber to homes pretty easily if they pace themselves, but they need to be given a reason to do so and competition is the best driver for that. So I would rather push that competition to be as strong as possible to force those market choices that would result in the best outcomes for society. Plus it has the word market so half the country will have less an emotional reaction to it :p
 
Declan said:
I am convinced that people are just so locked into having a cable come through their wall, that they do not even know what choices are out there available to them. I live in PoDunkyville and I have a plethora of internet options. Comcast is my only cable option, but it is not my only potential source for internet.
Click to expand...

With LTE type technologies coming about, if the FCC would open up a space for five or six companies to have decent bandwidth in any given geographical area, that would be amazing. Maybe we need to push digital TV and radio more to open up those bands. You could do a hell of a lot of good with stronger transmitters than you see on most towers and directional but lower power transmitters at houses. It wouldn't cost that much (as these things go, this stuff of course costs a bunch when comparing it to $0) either.

I have a friend who is the lead engineer at a wireless internet provider in the keys, this is exactly how they do it and their speeds are really fast.
 
Last edited:
The laws already on the books grant Internet providers essential monopolies on service. What is being "regulated" by net neutrality is not a free market, but a corporatist nightmare government created. The best solution would be to get rid of the anti-competitive laws that prop up current service providers, but that isn't on the table. The next best solution is net neutrality. Why?

Well why Signup for Comcast's "Xfinity Phone Service" when I can get Vonage, or any of 1000 other Voip Phone providers, at a better rate? Comcast sees this threat, and without net neutrality Comcast can legally drop packets from Vonage, or worse block them completely, eliminating Vonage as an option for consumers. In a freely competitive market, the likelihood of a company getting away with this is slim, as competitors could easily replace it. In such a market, net neutrality laws wouldn't really be needed. But in our corporatist, monopolistic nightmare, that competitive pressure does not exist. Without net-neutrality, it will only get worse.
 
Declan said:
I am convinced that people are just so locked into having a cable come through their wall, that they do not even know what choices are out there available to them. I live in PoDunkyville and I have a plethora of internet options. Comcast is my only cable option, but it is not my only potential source for internet.
Click to expand...

The government will soon fix that. ;)
 
Major Internet providers insist they have no plans to create such fast or slow lanes, but they strongly oppose the regulation, arguing that it could stifle innovation and investment. Open Internet rules had been in place but were recently knocked down by a federal court.
Click to expand...

I wonder what genius team of executives came up with this. The internet was already the most innovative playground on the planet. People spend literally billions of dollars a day on financing apps, cultural projects, tech dev, etc. Yet treating all data the same way it has been for the last 20+ years means this innovation might be stifled? Silly ****ers.
 
tacomancer said:
you are lucky in that you have a choice in a populated area like new jersey, much of the country doesn't have the luxury and they should not be relegated to fourth world (because many third world countries do internet better than this one) infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Well, it is less profitable in lower population areas, so they can charge more. If the price gets too high, competitors will come in to grab a piece of the pie. And I am not lucky, I pay taxes out the wazoo here which more than cancel out lower cable costs, if they are lower. $145 a month for TV/Phone/internet with no premium channels doesn't sound lucky to me.
 
tacomancer said:
If we had real competition in the market, then consumers would have options beyond being screwed or no high speed internet. That is the current situation that exists for most users and that is an unreasonable choice.
Click to expand...
Declan said:
I am convinced that people are just so locked into having a cable come through their wall, that they do not even know what choices are out there available to them. I live in PoDunkyville and I have a plethora of internet options. Comcast is my only cable option, but it is not my only potential source for internet.
Click to expand...
Unless you have access to fiber, your choice is the cable for HSI. Most DSL providers are pricing the service out (or ending it all together) to encourage a switch to fiber. Sure, you might still be able to get dial-up..or steal your neighbor's wifi..., but HSI choices are determined by how your local govt has divvied up the area for the providers.
 
Excon said:
The Gov is the enemy here.

Fast lanes have to exist for some data.
What we will see is exceptions being made while we are all taxed for our internet as a utility.
Hopefully those in power change the law of what the FCC can do with the internet.
Click to expand...

You'll be paying extra to speed up the Internet for the poorer who can't afford the higher speed.
 
American said:
You'll be paying extra to speed up the Internet for the poorer who can't afford the higher speed.
Click to expand...
No. Net neutrality does not prohibit service providers from charging people more for faster Internet, nor does it require service providers to give the same level of speed to all customers. That aspect would remain totally unchanged.

Net neutrality prohibits companies from charging people extra to have access to particular websites. Without net-neutrality, Comcast could make it impossible to watch Hulu or Netflix (competitors to its TV service) by severely lowering their speeds, running them out of business. Under net neutrality, companies can still offer users different speeds (as they do now), but can't slow down speeds of particular websites (which, by the way, is the de facto way things have been since the Internet began, it just hasn't been formally required).
 
Last edited:
Lakryte said:
No. Net neutrality is not prohibiting service providers from charging people more for faster Internet. That is currently a practice, has been a practice, and is not something being disputed by net neutrality.

Net neutrality prohibits companies from charging people extra to have access to particular websites. Without net-neutrality, Comcast could make it impossible to watch Hulu (a competitor to its TV service), running Hulu out of business.
Click to expand...

You forgot that they'd then be able to replace any competition with more costly services provided by .... well... them. So in short, instead of you having your cable with Comcast, and a subscription to Netflix, Comcast could simply slow down/block Netflix and then "provide" a similar service and also pocket the money you'd want to give to Netflix. Effectively stifling competition.
 
Last edited:
Anthony60 said:
No fast or slow lanes for Internet? New rules proposed

No fast or slow lanes for Internet? New rules proposed

WASHINGTON (AP) — Declaring the Internet critical for the nation, a top U.S. regulator on Wednesday proposed an unprecedented expansion of federal power to ensure providers don't block or slow web traffic for America's countless users.


Oh, boy. Every American should be wary about that phrase, "unprecedented expansion of federal power". That usually means you just lost a little (or big) piece of liberty that was formerly protected by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

While true, an "unprecedented expansion of federal power", with all the consumer's telephone service now being VoIP, and telephone service is a title 2 public utility (yes?), with that VoIP service I guess comes title 2 then.

While I can see this rationale, it doesn't mean that I support the idea of the government ****ing around with the Internet, which, in my view, is working more than it is not.

Blue_State said:
This issue sucks because the solution that works best for the people is not going to be the solution that is going to work for the government or the corporations. No matter how this plays out, we lose.
Click to expand...

With the government interference into something that already working 'well enough', isn't that always the case?
 
Hatuey said:
You forgot that they'd then be able to replace any competition with more costly services provided by .... well... them. So in short, instead of you having your cable with Comcast, and a subscription to Netflix, Comcast could simply slow down/block Netflix and then "provide" a similar service and also pocket the money you'd want to give to Netflix. Effectively stifling competition.
Click to expand...
Exactly. You beat me to the punch while I was editing my post :)

I think a lot of people are confused and think net neutrality means service providers have to give all subscribers the same speed. That isn't the case--it just has to charge the same rates to various websites/subscribers. Without net neutrality, it would be like a gas station charging people who drive fuel-efficient cars twice the price per gallon to make up for the money they would have brought in if the car was a Hummer.
 
eohrnberger said:
While I can see this rationale, it doesn't mean that I support the idea of the government ****ing around with the Internet, which, in my view, is working more than it is not.
Click to expand...
Net neutrality has been the de facto way of the Internet since its inception, and now cartelized cable companies are trying to change that by blocking competition. The government would not be ****ing around with the Internet. It would be keeping the Internet the same by prohibiting service providers from ****ing around with it.
 
Lakryte said:
Exactly. You beat me to the punch while I was editing my post :)

I think a lot of people are confused and think net neutrality means service providers have to give all subscribers the same speed. That isn't the case--it just has to charge the same rates to various websites/subscribers. Without net neutrality, it would be like a gas station charging people who drive fuel-efficient cars twice the price per gallon to make up for the money they would have brought in if the car was a Hummer.
Click to expand...

I see it more as a gas company having a monopoly over a certain geographic area, and then being given the power to charge people if they don't also buy food there as well as a say in how local fast food restaurants set up shop. These companies are being given the power to choke out smaller start ups if they don't play ball and pay ransoms. Though Netflix is way past the point of "startup", there are much smaller companies who are at risk.
 
Anthony60 said:
No fast or slow lanes for Internet? New rules proposed

No fast or slow lanes for Internet? New rules proposed

WASHINGTON (AP) — Declaring the Internet critical for the nation, a top U.S. regulator on Wednesday proposed an unprecedented expansion of federal power to ensure providers don't block or slow web traffic for America's countless users.


Oh, boy. Every American should be wary about that phrase, "unprecedented expansion of federal power". That usually means you just lost a little (or big) piece of liberty that was formerly protected by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

1. Allowing internet users to all parts of the internet, instead of providers and search engines sending favorites to users first (based on fees), IS the way the internet was constructed, to begin with.

2. It is the providers who came up with a scheme to bilk more money out of the system by demanding payments from providers, if they want users to have easy and priority access to their sites. Similar to what mafia godfathers used to do...demand "protection" money.

3. Users deserve and have a right to equal access to all sites, without preference to the big sites that can afford the protection payments demanded by providers.

4. Anyone who cares about small businesses will support equal access of users to all sites. If the bilking system is allowed, then that will make it hard, if not impossible, for small businesses to build a presence on the internet, and stay in business, since they can't pay the required fees that the big guys can.

It's the American way. Equal access to all sites, regardless of blackmail money that the big guys can pay to have their sites prioritized.

I do a search nowadays, and I am sick of getting 20 results that are basically the same few repeated over and over. In the old days, I would get a varied list of search results.

Providers and search engines make plenty of money through selling ads and other sources of revenue for the internet.

NOTE that providers LOVE the idea of the internet being a utility, but only insofar as it means they can charge users by the gigabyte (which is what a cap is). When, like a utility, it is suggested that users have equal access to that utility, providers are suddenly against it.
 
tacomancer said:
With LTE type technologies coming about, if the FCC would open up a space for five or six companies to have decent bandwidth in any given geographical area, that would be amazing. Maybe we need to push digital TV and radio more to open up those bands. You could do a hell of a lot of good with stronger transmitters than you see on most towers and directional but lower power transmitters at houses. It wouldn't cost that much (as these things go, this stuff of course costs a bunch when comparing it to $0) either.

I have a friend who is the lead engineer at a wireless internet provider in the keys, this is exactly how they do it and their speeds are really fast.
Click to expand...

That is my point. We can get decent wireless speeds, enough to watch video and the like, just from wireless providers. Even the local owned and operated ISP that handles the fiber provides wireless in most places locally. Then one can get internet through cable or telephone or other companies that sublease off the telephone lines. Sure you cannot upload a gig per second but nobody needs that. If my poor, little city in the boondocks has so many options, I am skeptical that people in larger more profitable markets only have 1 or 2 choices like people are always letting on when this net neutrality thing comes up. Hell we are in one of the poorest cities in the country and we have a basket to choose from.
 
Cardinal said:
The isps were going to stifle it unless net neutrality was made official. That's why Comcast (among others) sued to have nn removed.
Click to expand...
1. You have no idea what would have happened.
2. There was no reason to make it a utility and open it up to further regulation and taxation. None.




tacomancer said:
its already been stifled by lack of competition in the local markets. See how disruptive google fiber is? That sort of better service is normal in other countries that have more sane regulations and laws. Those countries tend to have more room for competition where we largely don't. this is how the ISPs shot themselves in the foot. They are killing their golden goose.
Click to expand...
Spare us the bs. You not liking your options does not mean you don't have any.
Nor is this about other countries. You want what they have, move there.

Making it a utility is the wrong way to go.




What if...? said:
The internet IS a utility.
Click to expand...
Oy vey! Not one that needed to be declared as such so the Gov can regulate it.




American said:
You'll be paying extra to speed up the Internet for the poorer who can't afford the higher speed.
Click to expand...

I am aware of that.
And fast lanes will continue to exist.

The only thing that seems possible now is law suits and/or for a Different administration to reverse any changes made.
 
Lakryte said:
No. Net neutrality does not prohibit service providers from charging people more for faster Internet, nor does it require service providers to give the same level of speed to all customers. That aspect would remain totally unchanged.

Net neutrality prohibits companies from charging people extra to have access to particular websites. Without net-neutrality, Comcast could make it impossible to watch Hulu or Netflix (competitors to its TV service) by severely lowering their speeds, running them out of business. Under net neutrality, companies can still offer users different speeds (as they do now), but can't slow down speeds of particular websites (which, by the way, is the de facto way things have been since the Internet began, it just hasn't been formally required).
Click to expand...
Like I said fast lanes will still exist.
Just as preferential treatment will also exist, as it has to.

But there was no reason to make it a Utility opening it to such regulation and taxation as one.
 
Hatuey said:
I see it more as a gas company having a monopoly over a certain geographic area, and then being given the power to charge people if they don't also buy food there as well as a say in how local fast food restaurants set up shop. These companies are being given the power to choke out smaller start ups if they don't play ball and pay ransoms. Though Netflix is way past the point of "startup", there are much smaller companies who are at risk.
Click to expand...
`
This is why the FCC wants to go back to Title II. While there is more work to be done, treating the net as a public utility and keeping the carnivorous telecommunications corporations away, will encourage online competition that might otherwise be stifled by the current monopoly.
 
Excon said:
Like I said fast lanes will still exist.
Just as preferential treatment will also exist, as it has to.

But there was no reason to make it a Utility opening it to such regulation and taxation as one.
Click to expand...

I don't really and fully understand why this is such an issue. Utilities will often have price and supply differentiation. So why the excitement here?
 
joG said:
I don't really and fully understand why this is such an issue. Utilities will often have price and supply differentiation. So why the excitement here?
Click to expand...
:doh
There was no reason to make it a Utility opening it to such regulation and taxation as one.
 
Anthony60 said:
No fast or slow lanes for Internet? New rules proposed

No fast or slow lanes for Internet? New rules proposed

WASHINGTON (AP) — Declaring the Internet critical for the nation, a top U.S. regulator on Wednesday proposed an unprecedented expansion of federal power to ensure providers don't block or slow web traffic for America's countless users.


Oh, boy. Every American should be wary about that phrase, "unprecedented expansion of federal power". That usually means you just lost a little (or big) piece of liberty that was formerly protected by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I think in this case it's more good than bad. The internet is pretty critical to society anymore. It needs to be protected the way a utility is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom