• 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!

FCC adopts Net neutrality rules to ban Internet discrimination

Whew! That was close. Good thing the government stepped in and saved us! Because, you know, the internet was getting to be a problem, but not anymore. Who wants to bet that we will soon need new fees and taxes added on to our bills so the government can pay for the cost of fixing the internet?

There is a congressional moratorium on internet taxes still in effect, and the fact sheet released previously specifically states the order will not require internet providers to contribute to the USF.
 
Yesterday, $100. I win. Feel free to donate the money to charity.

133 US cities now have their own broadband networks | Ars Technica

Agreed. One hundred dollars, as of yesterday.

Seeing as your own criteria was "only able to get internet from your local government," you've already lost. Those cities run their own broadband network, but they aren't the only option. You still have the option of whatever local cable company is operating.

We both know you're not honest enough to pay up, though.
 
Agreed. One hundred dollars, as of yesterday.

Seeing as your own criteria was "only able to get internet from your local government," you've already lost. Those cities run their own broadband network, but they aren't the only option. You still have the option of whatever local cable company is operating.

We both know you're not honest enough to pay up, though.


And the ISPs are doing their best to stop this alternative. I believe the new FCC regulations allow these and will stop laws against public networks.

In underserved areas, these public networks are very appealing. I wish my area would do it....
 
Precisely why oversight is required to make sure these companies don't abuse the power that comes with a monopoly on such a basic service.

You're obviously mixing issues --- breaking up monopolies and the FCC regulations of the internet are not the same thing and you know it. The FTC and the courts bust monopolies, the FCC does NOT.
 
You're obviously mixing issues --- breaking up monopolies and the FCC regulations of the internet are not the same thing and you know it. The FTC and the courts bust monopolies, the FCC does NOT.

He didn't say anything about breaking up monopolies.
 
He didn't say anything about breaking up monopolies.

He used it as an example of oversight and is referencing a different discussion he and I already had about net neutrality.

Now what part of my statement would you like to discuss?
 
He used it as an example of oversight and is referencing a different discussion he and I already had about net neutrality.

Now what part of my statement would you like to discuss?

A different discussion? The point Deuce was making in this discussion had nothing to do with breaking up monopolies. Perhaps you're the one "obviously mixing issues."
 
Would you like to discuss my post or continue to troll? If the latter... I'll pass.

You're perfectly free to take an attitude with me if you like -- I don't mind. My goal was simply to point out that you misunderstood his post and I accomplished that goal.

Be well.
 
You're perfectly free to take an attitude with me if you like -- I don't mind. My goal was simply to point out that you misunderstood his post and I accomplished that goal.

Be well.

And I pointed out there was no misunderstanding and asked you to either discuss the topic or I'll pass on any further discussion.
 
The government is not taking over anything. What makes you think that? You been reading those partisan sites again?

If you are on the side of small businesses, then you are 100% supportive of net neutrality. Net neutrality merely reinstates what has been the case with broadband use until recently, when the telecom companies came up with a scheme to blackmail businesses. This merely gives the FCC the right to respond to complaints about mafioso tactics.

Internet costs are not dropping, except in your universe, I guess. I have paid the same amount for the same speed for years. What may have changed are the creation of fictitious high speeds that telecom companies will sell you for less per mbps than if you get, say 3 mbps. But you neither need, nor do you get, 100 mbps, in most cases. Streaming movies only needs about 6 mbps.

You may not know, but your broadband provider throttles its internet highway, except for certain businesses that have paid up to ensure its services won't be throttled. This regulation seems to put an end to the blackmail, and an end to the broadband provider deciding which services you will be able to see w/o throttling. Throttling can make a service unuseable. Netflix isn't throttled, since it pays about $100M a year to Comcast to prevent that.

My provider doesn't do that because I have the old timey dsl, which is not throttled.

Throttling is what some broadband providers do instead of updating their equipment to meet demand.

And you know all that how???!!? There was no transparency leading up to the vote, the over-sight committees had not yet seen the regulations. This has sniveling Pelosi BS all over, 'they needed to pass it so we can know what is in it'.
 
He used it as an example of oversight and is referencing a different discussion he and I already had about net neutrality.

Now what part of my statement would you like to discuss?

I didn't say we need to break them up, im saying we need to regulate them. Monopolies are in unique position to abuse the public, and high-speed internet is a sort of natural monopoly. There are physical, financial, and technical limitations to true competition. Arbitrarily breaking up companies doesn't solve the issue, as the local cable company is still going to be a local monopoly.

Hence the need for regulation.
 
And you know all that how???!!? There was no transparency leading up to the vote, the over-sight committees had not yet seen the regulations. This has sniveling Pelosi BS all over, 'they needed to pass it so we can know what is in it'.

I judge based on information previously released, but will reassess once the regs hit the federal register.
 
What you are missing is the FCC is responsible for creating the monopoly that Comcast enjoys.
Different phone companies get different territories, and are exclusive in that territory.
Under deregulation, a competitor can operate in one of these exclusive territories,
but needs to rent space in the competitors building. (CLEC)
Competitive local exchange carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There were issues with the way it was working, I am concerned that in fixing the issues,
We might end up with fewer choices, not more.

You are misinformed. You are using the telephone regulations and they do not apply to cable companies and their delivery of internet or TV. Curiously, the regulations you talk about were put in place to keep the Baby Bells from completely monopolizing their territory after the breakup of AT&T. They had to provide alternate access so that cellular carriers could complete calls to land lines. When the FCC put those rules in place, the Baby Bells made the same arguments about stifling investment as the Comcast's are making. It is BS.

BTW, the other big thing that the FCC did was nullify state laws that would prevent municipalities from installing their own digital infrastructure. The state governments were in the pockets of cable companies and were passing laws protecting the monopolies of the cable companies. The FCC said they could not do that. This is a big win because cable companies were not providing adequate service to many communities (cable companies actually provide inadequate service to everyone).

All in all, having the government step in to keep the cable companies from screwing us over is a good thing.
 
You do know that ISP have expenses that need to be met?? Things like payroll, hardware, software, etc.

Go look at the gross profit margin of the internet service that cable companies provide. Given that the cable is installed in order to provide TV, the marginal cost of providing internet service over that cable is VERY low. Some companies achieve a GPM of over 90% on their internet service. This is a very high number and would pay for a lot of people.
 
I didn't say we need to break them up, im saying we need to regulate them. Monopolies are in unique position to abuse the public, and high-speed internet is a sort of natural monopoly. There are physical, financial, and technical limitations to true competition. Arbitrarily breaking up companies doesn't solve the issue, as the local cable company is still going to be a local monopoly.

Hence the need for regulation.

I disagree - we DO need to break them up especially where competition is not adequate. Regulation or it's more commonly known synonym, "control" isn't needed with the internet, but I think we've already gone around that may pole.
 
I judge based on information previously released, but will reassess once the regs hit the federal register.

As will I, but judging on history and experience with this slimy administration, ala Obamacare 'we have to pass to find out what is in it', I am not holding out hope. The philosophy of the regulation may make sense, but how can so many libs blindly support it before knowing what the law actually is?? Fool me once....... ala the slimy Obamacare law.
 
Agreed. One hundred dollars, as of yesterday.

Seeing as your own criteria was "only able to get internet from your local government," you've already lost. Those cities run their own broadband network, but they aren't the only option. You still have the option of whatever local cable company is operating.

We both know you're not honest enough to pay up, though.

Agreed, Ive won. There are already places where the internet is a public monopoly. Donate it to the NRA please.
 
I disagree - we DO need to break them up especially where competition is not adequate. Regulation or it's more commonly known synonym, "control" isn't needed with the internet, but I think we've already gone around that may pole.

But breaking up a company doesn't solve the monopoly issue. There's only one cable line in my neighborhood, only one entity can own it.
 
Agreed, Ive won. There are already places where the internet is a public monopoly. Donate it to the NRA please.

Name such a place.
 
But breaking up a company doesn't solve the monopoly issue.
They don't have to break up the company. That's not the only option the FTC would have.

There's only one cable line in my neighborhood, only one entity can own it.
One of the bell companies owned the only copper telephone lines in your neighborhood too at one time and they were forced to share and compete by allowing other company's to offer local telephone service on those lines as well.
 
They don't have to break up the company. That's not the only option the FTC would have.
No, they don't have to. Breaking them up was your idea, not mine.
Ockham said:
I disagree - we DO need to break them up especially where competition is not adequate.

One of the bell companies owned the only copper telephone lines in your neighborhood too at one time and they were forced to share and compete by allowing other company's to offer local telephone service on those lines as well.

Yes, that is certainly an option and it is one of the potential actions that the FCC can use under Title II to ensure fair competition. It's the sort of option brought about by

Ockham said:
Regulation or it's more commonly known synonym, "control" isn't needed with the internet, but I think we've already gone around that may pole.

Did you have a stroke and forget which side of this argument you are on?
 
Back
Top Bottom