• 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

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​



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.
Click to expand...

This opinion piece doesn't cite a specific regulation that says all such classifications require the tax in question.

I know that the tax can be applied. Will it? Can't our Republican-controlled congress pass a bill exempting internet access from our tax? Why does everyone act like the specifics are already set in stone?
 
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 already are. You are not only paying your internet service provider for access to dozens of sports sites, you are paying it for access to the entirety of accessible websites, in order to come here to debate politics. You are not just paying for debatepolitics.com.
 
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...

You only lose if you let the government fascistically control yet another portion of our society. A coup has occurred. We are no longer free.
 
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...

Government never does the right thing. You just have not felt the full pain yet. This is like rolling out Obamacare over a period of years. One should not heat the water that boils the frog too quickly lest the frog recognize the danger and jump free.

You willingly give up what little liberty you have so that government can control you.
 
tacomancer said:
There is plenty of room in the ground for a ditch witch. that's how our cabling is here, almost all in the ground.

but regardless, we are past that point now. The market is what it is, and because it is this way, it needs to be treated as a utility.
Click to expand...

It won't be long before the government will decide what each of us may have or not have. The Soviet Union had such a system. If you were a member of the Communist Party you had poor service. If you were not you had no service. It will be the same here.

I do not understand why we have not yet rebelled and swept Washington DC free from its political vermin.
 
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...

Freedom is not for everybody. Where do all of the people who are eager to be slaves come from? You must know.
 
tacomancer said:
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
Click to expand...

I started one of the first ISPs in Texas. I had no government help. I did have lots of obstacles.
 
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...

Government will do that with the new taxes and fees to pay for all of the new policing that will be required. By what part of the Constitution is the government claiming this new power?
 
Excon said:
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​



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.
Click to expand...

And control.
 
Misterveritis said:
Freedom is not for everybody. Where do all of the people who are eager to be slaves come from? You must know.
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, or admit you have no argument.
 
Misterveritis said:
You only lose if you let the government fascistically control yet another portion of our society. A coup has occurred. We are no longer free.
Click to expand...
`
In a breath, I'd rather have the government exercise control the net than any for-profit corporation.
 
Misterveritis said:
Government will do that with the new taxes and fees to pay for all of the new policing that will be required. By what part of the Constitution is the government claiming this new power?
Click to expand...
What new taxes and fees are you referring to?
 
Cardinal said:
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, or admit you have no argument.
Click to expand...

This is about as dumb a request as I have ever seen. Why don't you give me examples of innovation in the electrical utilities field where the government has a long history of regulation. The utilities do not do anything they are not told to do by the government regulators.

Walk me through this or admit that you are an authoritarian statist.
 
Lakryte said:
What new taxes and fees are you referring to?
Click to expand...

How do you believe this massive new federal bureaucracy will be paid for? Who knows what they will be. If you want an ideal take a walk through an itemized phone bill. You will find many small fees and taxes. They are chopped up so you will be less aware of the total government take. You will be paying for the minders, the busybodies and the Internet Police.
 
Misterveritis said:
This is about as dumb a request as I have ever seen. Why don't you give me examples of innovation in the electrical utilities field where the government has a long history of regulation. The utilities do not do anything they are not told to do by the government regulators.

Walk me through this or admit that you are an authoritarian statist.
Click to expand...

Answer my question and I'll answer yours. The claim is that this stifles innovation. Demonstrate this for us poor Statists.
 
Misterveritis said:
How do you believe this massive new federal bureaucracy will be paid for? Who knows what they will be. If you want an ideal take a walk through an itemized phone bill. You will find many small fees and taxes. They are chopped up so you will be less aware of the total government take. You will be paying for the minders, the busybodies and the Internet Police.
Click to expand...

How do you know we are getting a "massive new federal bureacracy?"
 
Misterveritis said:
That is because you are an authoritarian statist.
Click to expand...
`
Wrong. It's because the REAL enemy of the US is not the government, Islamics, communists, Tea Party or religious right ---- It's the banks and corporations.
 
Lakryte said:
You already are. You are not only paying your internet service provider for access to dozens of sports sites, you are paying it for access to the entirety of accessible websites, in order to come here to debate politics. You are not just paying for debatepolitics.com.
Click to expand...

Yes, at all more or less the same speed.

And you know I'm talking about "tiers" like on cable. Where sites get bundled together. You don't get all of them unless you pay extra. "Like politics? Get our political board bundle at high speed for only $20 extra a month. (Otherwise you can enjoy them at 56k second for FREE!)
 
whysoserious said:
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.
Click to expand...

Its not just net neutrality, its classifying Internet as a public utility, using a wireless act meant for radio, which gives the FCC a lot of power. Like with TV they will be able to regulate content.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm just concerned about losing more liberties to the federal government. You never get them back. At some point, we won't be able to stop them.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
Wrong. It's because the REAL enemy of the US is not the government, Islamics, communists, Tea Party or religious right ---- It's the banks and corporations.
Click to expand...

I would say it is more the banks & government working together.
 
Anthony60 said:
I'm just concerned about losing more liberties to the federal government. You never get them back. At some point, we won't be able to stop them.
Click to expand...

I think you'll be fine without the liberty to throttle network traffic based on who pays more.

In fact, we'll all be better off. Net neutrality is a barrier to censorship and a barrier to the stifling of innovation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom