• 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

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...

I don't want to pay for access to dozens of sports sites to be able to come here to debate politics. Like cable. Nor do I want to wait dial up times for a page to open here.
 
What if...? said:
I don't want to pay for access to dozens of sports sites to be able to come here to debate politics. Like cable. Nor do I want to wait dial up times for a page to open here.
Click to expand...

You don't have to wait for you shower water do you?
 
joG said:
You don't have to wait for you shower water do you?
Click to expand...

No. Because its a utility and they're not allowed to make you wait unless you pay extra.
 
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...
Yeah like "Patriot Act" and "No Child Left Behind". Conservatives were really terrified about the obvious "unprecedented expansions of federal powers"
 
reinoe said:
Yeah like "Patriot Act" and "No Child Left Behind". Conservatives were really terrified about the obvious "unprecedented expansions of federal powers"
Click to expand...

Conservatives are, RINO's, which you are talking about, are not.
 
Declan said:
That is because they can only hang so many wires on the telephone polls before they snap. That will change with fiber giving people the ability to have multiple providers over the same line without having to do the licensing with the monopoly holder that happens with things like land line telephone service.
Click to expand...

The majority of ISPs out there already lease space on the existing lines for their customers. Every copper line around here belongs to Verizon. Any ISP that is not Verizon has to pay to use the copper and provide service to their customers. Nobody is putting up new copper lines, anymore than they'd be putting up new fiber lines. The ones who incurred the cost to put up the existing lines deserve to be compensated for the use of those lines. The only solution is to nationalize the lines and have the government be in charge of repairs, which honestly, Verizon is slow enough, the government would take forever, or to just continue to do business as usual. Find a better option.
 
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...

Ive said it before, but people wont believe it till they experience it. Getting the govt involved in the internet will result in less freedom, not more. Just one more reason states needs to go independent.
 
if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
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...

This is a picture of a Japanese internment camp in Tule Lake in Utah. I think we can all agree that they would empathize with your plight of being forced to endure the continued convenience of network neutrality due to unprecedented expansion of Federal power.

tule-13.jpg
 
Cephus said:
The majority of ISPs out there already lease space on the existing lines for their customers. Every copper line around here belongs to Verizon. Any ISP that is not Verizon has to pay to use the copper and provide service to their customers. Nobody is putting up new copper lines, anymore than they'd be putting up new fiber lines. The ones who incurred the cost to put up the existing lines deserve to be compensated for the use of those lines. The only solution is to nationalize the lines and have the government be in charge of repairs, which honestly, Verizon is slow enough, the government would take forever, or to just continue to do business as usual. Find a better option.
Click to expand...

A lot also has to do with right of ways. My city has rights of way that the companies sublease to run their wires over those lines and the city spends a fortune maintaining those rights of way, so everybody who uses them should have to pay. In the rural county, however, the county itself does not own a lot of rights of way for that sort of stuff. Somebody in the past, present, or future paid/pays property owners to run those lines through, over, or under their property and whoever owns them has the right to sublease as a way of recovering those expenses. It is not as big of a deal in the city, but outside of it, the land records overflow with these rights of way agreements.
 
Cardinal said:
This is a picture of a Japanese internment camp in Tule Lake in Utah. I think we can all agree that they would empathize with your plight of being forced to endure the continued convenience of network neutrality due to unprecedented expansion of Federal power.
Click to expand...

Ah, you should probably try and include a point, unless I'm missing it? Are you pointing out that we should not trust the federal government, especially when liberals like FDR and Obama are in office, because if you think you can trust them, before you know it, they've gone way too far?

They always start with a "for your own good" type of thing, and it ends up being a detriment to all, except the government.
 
Why do people assume net neutrality is some massive expansion... or even expansion at all? Net Neutrality can and should be enforced by the businesses and users that subscribe to the service, and any breaches in Net Neutrality can be handled via lawsuits. It's not as if some "Net Neutrality Agency" would need to be created.
 
Anthony60 said:
Ah, you should probably try and include a point, unless I'm missing it? Are you pointing out that we should not trust the federal government, especially when liberals like FDR and Obama are in office, because if you think you can trust them, before you know it, they've gone way too far?

They always start with a "for your own good" type of thing, and it ends up being a detriment to all, except the government.
Click to expand...

Only idiots think everything is one or the other. You have to judge each decision on its own merits, so as a result you're going to find that government is going to make some bad decisions and good decisions. It makes no more sense to abolish government involvement on the basis of its bad decisions than it does to give them free reign on the basis of its good ones. If that sounds silly to you, use your own life as a perspective: you've made some good and bad decisions in your own life, I'm sure. Have you removed your right to make decisions for yourself due to having made bad decisions? That's not how life or governance works.

Mostly, though, my point was that if you want to use words like "unprecedented" in the future, pick up a history book first.
 
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...

They already govern by proxy through the major search and email providers - admittedly pluck people's cell phones and all else. So really, this is just making legal everything they've already done.

At the same time - they're considering letting other countries keep after domain names and proxy servers. . . so ? It's like they're making decisions that will pull things in opposite directions.
 


Page two continues and ends with the following.

to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s
2massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the
public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.​
 
Excon said:


Page two continues and ends with the following.
to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s
2massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the
public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.​
Click to expand...

A Republican telcom lobbyist thinks Obama's plan is bad? You don't say.

He makes a lot of declaration about the future. I'm sure he's got something to support that. I guess I'll wait for those supposed "details."
 
Adamaris said:
I don't know... Of course, we need to watch out for the government not to expand it power too much, but in this particular case...
I've been watching this debate for some time, and as far as I understand, for once in a while our government is doing the right thing. It restricts the companies from making the user to pay not only for the Internet access, but also for access to certain sites. Just imagine you were forced to pay extra if you wanted to access Youtube, for example. Or this forum...
Click to expand...

Then you would switch providers Or if you felt strongly enough about it you would create one. Just because there is a government solution does not mean we should have one.
 
tech30528 said:
Then you would switch providers
Click to expand...
A substantial portion of the population has access to only one broadband cable provider and/or one DSL provider. This industry is not exactly a bastion of capitalistic competition.

Or if you felt strongly enough about it you would create one.
Click to expand...
Hahahahahahah sure let me just check my wallet for a few billion dollars.

Just because there is a government solution does not mean we should have one.
Click to expand...
Just because the government does something doesn't mean it's bad.
 
Deuce said:
A Republican telcom lobbyist thinks Obama's plan is bad? You don't say.

He makes a lot of declaration about the future. I'm sure he's got something to support that. I guess I'll wait for those supposed "details."
Click to expand...
:doh
1. There has been no transparency.
2. We should be able to see it long before it is put into effect.
3. Ajit Pai is a FCC Commissioner who knows what it contains. What he says will happen is only basic knowledge (as in common sense) of what will occur. Which has already been stated by other posters here.

Do you really think what he says wont happen?
Taxes? Stifling?
 
Excon said:
:doh
1. There has been no transparency.
Click to expand...
No, Pai did not provide details.

2. We should be able to see it long before it is put into effect.
Click to expand...
When is it being put into effect?

3. Ajit Pai is a FCC Commissioner who knows what it contains. What he says will happen is only basic knowledge (as in common sense) of what will occur. Which has already been stated by other posters here.
Click to expand...
He's speculating about impacts of non-specific actions that I don't have any reason to expect will occur.
He is an FCC commissioner now. His last job, on the other hand, was...

Do you really think what he says wont happen?
Taxes? Stifling?
Click to expand...

Is there a regulation in Title II that says taxes must be levied on any service classified under the rule?

Why would net neutrality suddenly start stifling innovation? It never has before.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
A substantial portion of the population has access to only one broadband cable provider and/or one DSL provider. This industry is not exactly a bastion of capitalistic competition.


Hahahahahahah sure let me just check my wallet for a few billion dollars.


Just because the government does something doesn't mean it's bad.
Click to expand...

So who is going to pay for it? Because the government has nothing until they take it away from someone else. And the government has not only proven itself to provide substandard services at way over competitive prices, but they lack the authority to do this. If you are planning to move, do you first research taxes, schools, medical services and retail establishments? I moved from the Chicago suburbs to the Georgia mountains and there is not a comparable pizza to be had within 40 miles. Should the government be required to build a pizzaria too? Part of the problem here is that we once again started with a flawed premise, that high speed internet is a necessity. It is not. I could live without it and I own a business. Facebook and kitten videos are not food and water.
 
tech30528 said:
So who is going to pay for it?
Click to expand...
Pay for what?


Because the government has nothing until they take it away from someone else. And the government has not only proven itself to provide substandard services at way over competitive prices, but they lack the authority to do this. If you are planning to move, do you first research taxes, schools, medical services and retail establishments? I moved from the Chicago suburbs to the Georgia mountains and there is not a comparable pizza to be had within 40 miles. Should the government be required to build a pizzaria too? Part of the problem here is that we once again started with a flawed premise, that high speed internet is a necessity. It is not. I could live without it and I own a business. Facebook and kitten videos are not food and water.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? Net neutrality doesn't mean the government starts up an ISP.
 
Deuce said:
No, Pai did not provide details.
Click to expand...
:naughty
No, Obama didn't.


Deuce said:
When is it being put into effect?
Click to expand...
Hopefully never.
The Commission is voting on it this month.
But as it currently contains mostly Democrat lackeys, you know damn well it has a better chance of being approved than not.


Deuce said:
He's speculating about impacts
Click to expand...
For the most part he is telling you the generalities of what is going to happen.
Which is based on his knowledge and experience and it is the same thing others here have said is going to happen.


Deuce said:
that I don't have any reason to expect will occur.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Deuce said:
He is an FCC commissioner now. His last job, on the other hand, was...
Click to expand...
Was what?
Do you even know?
Try with the FCC.
Between 2007 and 2011, Pai held several positions in the FCC’s Office of General Counsel, serving most prominently as Deputy General Counsel. In this role, he had supervisory responsibility over several dozen lawyers in the Administrative Law Division and worked on a wide variety of regulatory and transactional matters involving the wireless, wireline, cable, Internet, media, and satellite industries.[1]

Pai’s career outside of the FCC has spanned the private and public sectors. With respect to the private sector, Pai worked in the Washington, D.C. office of Jenner & Block LLP, where he was a Partner in the Communications Practice until being sworn in as a Commissioner. Years earlier, he served as Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc., where he handled competition matters, regulatory issues, and counseling of business units on broadband initiatives.[1]

Pai also has served in all three branches of the federal government. After moving to Washington, DC in 1998, his first post was with the United States Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division as an Honors Program trial attorney on the Telecommunications Task Force. There, he worked on proposed mergers and acquisitions and on novel requests for regulatory relief following the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He later returned to the Department of Justice to serve as Senior Counsel in the Office of Legal Policy. Pai has worked on Capitol Hill as well, first as Deputy Chief Counsel to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, and later as Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights. Immediately following law school, he clerked for the Honorable Martin L.C. Feldman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.[1]

In 2013, Pai was scheduled to appear as a featured speaker at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Washington DC policy summit and at The LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) Technology Partnership's fall policy forum.[8][9]

Ajit Varadaraj Pai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Character limit.
Continued below.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Is there a regulation in Title II that says taxes must be levied on any service classified under the rule?
Click to expand...
Really? This discussion has been going on in the various threads since it was suggested and you don't know?
I find that hard to believe.


The FCC imposes fees of 16.1% on interstate telecommunications services that will generate more than $8 billion in federal universal service funds in 2014. Additional FCC fees on interstate telecommunications services raise $1 billion for federal telecommunications relay services. Although Congress mandates the general nature of the federal universal service fund and telecommunications relay services, it is the FCC alone that sets the budget size of the funds and develops the fee structure to raise receipts for the funds.

Even with all of its power, the FCC does not have the money to fund all of the new programs it seeks. For example, just in the past year, the FCC announced an ambitious multi-billion program to connect schools and libraries with Wi-Fi. Other advocates seek expansion of the low-income program. But where can the FCC find funds for new social programs not required by statute?

The FCC’s network neutrality proceeding may easily provide the answer. By classifying broadband access services as “interstate telecommunications services,” those services would suddenly become required to pay FCC fees. At the current 16.1% fee structure, it would be perhaps the largest, one-time tax increase on the Internet. The FCC would have many billions of dollars of expanded revenue base to fund new programs without, according to the FCC, any need for congressional authorization.
FCC Plans Stealth Internet Tax Increase - Forbes​


Deuce said:
Why would net neutrality suddenly start stifling innovation? It never has before.
Click to expand...
As with much proposed by Dems, you will not find truth in it's title.
This isn't about neutrality. It is about regulation and taxation.
 
Excon said:
:naughty
No, Obama didn't.


Hopefully never.
The Commission is voting on it this month.
But as it currently contains mostly Democrat lackeys, you know damn well it has a better chance of being approved than not.


For the most part he is telling you the generalities of what is going to happen.
Which is based on his knowledge and experience and it is the same thing others here have said is going to happen.


Wrong.

Was what?
Do you even know?
Try with the FCC.
Between 2007 and 2011, Pai held several positions in the FCC’s Office of General Counsel, serving most prominently as Deputy General Counsel. In this role, he had supervisory responsibility over several dozen lawyers in the Administrative Law Division and worked on a wide variety of regulatory and transactional matters involving the wireless, wireline, cable, Internet, media, and satellite industries.[1]

Pai’s career outside of the FCC has spanned the private and public sectors. With respect to the private sector, Pai worked in the Washington, D.C. office of Jenner & Block LLP, where he was a Partner in the Communications Practice until being sworn in as a Commissioner. Years earlier, he served as Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc., where he handled competition matters, regulatory issues, and counseling of business units on broadband initiatives.[1]

Pai also has served in all three branches of the federal government. After moving to Washington, DC in 1998, his first post was with the United States Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division as an Honors Program trial attorney on the Telecommunications Task Force. There, he worked on proposed mergers and acquisitions and on novel requests for regulatory relief following the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He later returned to the Department of Justice to serve as Senior Counsel in the Office of Legal Policy. Pai has worked on Capitol Hill as well, first as Deputy Chief Counsel to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, and later as Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights. Immediately following law school, he clerked for the Honorable Martin L.C. Feldman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.[1]

In 2013, Pai was scheduled to appear as a featured speaker at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Washington DC policy summit and at The LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) Technology Partnership's fall policy forum.[8][9]

Ajit Varadaraj Pai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Character limit.
Continued below.
Click to expand...


Please explain using specifics how innovation will be stifled by the FCC upholding net neutrality. No generalities, no vague buzzwords, no more evasions and non-answers...specifics. Walk us through this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom