• 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

No, they don't have to. Breaking them up was your idea, not mine.
My point was it's an option, but not the only option, which you now acknowledge.
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
Wrong. Title II doesn't address monopolies nor the break up of a monopoly. Yes Title II does address fair competition - but the FTC would be the entity that would break up a monopoly.

Did you have a stroke and forget which side of this argument you are on?
See I can separate issues such as monopoly from regulation like net neutrality and address the separately unlike yourself, who really doesn't have much experience with any of it.
 
My point was it's an option, but not the only option, which you now acknowledge.

Wrong. Title II doesn't address monopolies nor the break up of a monopoly. Yes Title II does address fair competition - but the FTC would be the entity that would break up a monopoly.

See I can separate issues such as monopoly from regulation like net neutrality and address the separately unlike yourself, who really doesn't have much experience with any of it.

Natural monopoly is a reason net neutrality is important. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think they're the same thing, or that I ever argued that any option was the only possible options. Forget your side of the argument, you don't even have a clue what my argument is.
 
Is Netflix entitled to limitless bandwidth? Is Netflix some crucial piece of infrastructure that needs to be shielded from predatory corporations?


NETFLIX had NOTHING to do with net neutrality, it was about peers, and direct connections, upstream peers being added for downstream traffic et al.
 
Natural monopoly is a reason net neutrality is important. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think they're the same thing, or that I ever argued that any option was the only possible options. Forget your side of the argument, you don't even have a clue what my argument is.
I get the idea because you can't seem to differentiate monopoly from net neutrality - they are not the same thing, nor are they addressed by the same areas of government. You don't know what your argument is....

You glom together monopoly and net neutrality and they don't address the same things. You claim Title II addresses monopoly and it doesn't. You claim the FCC and net neutrality addresses monopoly and they don't. YOU clearly don't have a clue WHAT your argument is nor are educated on the subject matter. Please do so if you want to argue an educated point, assuming you ever find one.
 
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.

So what??? Why should you or anyone else have ANY say over how much money a company can charge for it's services/goods?? If it's such a horrible thing to make that kind of money, simply start your own ISP that makes only 1% and put them out of business by undercutting thier prices. Also, do you have a source for your claims?
 
I get the idea because you can't seem to differentiate monopoly from net neutrality - they are not the same thing, nor are they addressed by the same areas of government. You don't know what your argument is....
Really. You just quoted a post where I said the two aren't the same. Yet, for some reason, you insist I think they are the same.

Elaborate. Quote the particular post that led you to this conclusion, so everyone can see.
 
North Korea. Can we move on now?

AHahahahahahah.

Thank you for proving me right. Your insistence was that this regulation would mean that we end up only being able to purchase internet access from the government. Seeing as how this regulation applies to the United States, you would have had to show that there was a place in the US where only the government provided internet access.

You were unable to do so. Instead, you had to go to North Korea to find an example.

You still wont pay up. Everyone knows you're not honest enough. $100, it was your own bet. Pay to this forum's operations. A man of his word would do so. Are you such a man?
 
Last edited:
Really. You just quoted a post where I said the two aren't the same. Yet, for some reason, you insist I think they are the same.

Elaborate. Quote the particular post that led you to this conclusion, so everyone can see.

Certainly.

Deuce said:
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.
Wrong. Title II does not identify monopoly. Also, the FTC breaks up monopolies, not the FCC.


Deuce said:
I didn't say we need to break them up, im saying we need to regulate them.
You don't regulate a monopoly, which was what was being discussed after I referenced Comcast, yet you then say....

Deuce said:
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.

Where you were wrong again - when I cited Bell/AT&T divestiture. Breaking up a company DOES in fact solve the monopoly.


At this point I figured out you really have no clue as to what's going on. All you know is you want more government control and let me yes, go back to my previous statement where I said you've never met a government regulation you didn't like. ALL inclusive. You don't know the FTC from the FCC, Title II from Title III, competition or fair use / lease, but you sure as heck know that if the government controls it, it must be good in your opinion.

Take my advice and stop digging now. It'll turn out badly if you let your internet ego get the best of you going forward.
 
Last edited:
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.

Another thing that is so reassuring is that the court ruled that the FCC didn't have the power to do this. So what did they do? They just gave themselves the power. Love when the government does that.

Oh, good. There is a moratorium. That is backed by what now? A promise by a collection of politicians? I don't think I can think of anything on this earth that is less reliable than that.
 
AHahahahahahah.

Thank you for proving me right. Your insistence was that this regulation would mean that we end up only being able to purchase internet access from the government. Seeing as how this regulation applies to the United States, you would have had to show that there was a place in the US where only the government provided internet access.

You were unable to do so. Instead, you had to go to North Korea to find an example.

You still wont pay up. Everyone knows you're not honest enough. $100, it was your own bet. Pay to this forum's operations. A man of his word would do so. Are you such a man?

I was obviously being rhetorical. No need for personal attacks.
 
Another thing that is so reassuring is that the court ruled that the FCC didn't have the power to do this. So what did they do? They just gave themselves the power. Love when the government does that.

Which is why the government needs to be seriously neutered.
 
What? No. They use a lot of bandwidth and they pay for it. You seem to be yet another person who fundamentally misunderstands net neutrality.

I'm just a lowly commoner, so I don't have time to intimately familiarize myself with the grandiose visions of DNC elitists and loyalists, but if i misunderstand "net neutrality", then it's because the FCC was keeping their "net neutrality" regulations a secret from the public until after the five bureaucrats voted down partisan lines to fundamentally alter the regulatory relationship between the federal government and the "internet".

But what do you mean by "they pay for it"? Do you know how much they should be paying for it? What's the magic number or rate that Comcast or other ISP's should be allowed to charge Netflix for X bytes/second? Maybe if there had been some kind of broader engagement with ordinary Americans by the insular and secretive Obama administration, there wouldn't be so many unanswered questions from regular joes like me.
 

Nothing you can say or post will make your previous statement accurate. Netflix has provided substantial material and moral support to the so-called "net neutrality" cause, so clearly they had SOMETHING to do with it. Not even the article you posted categorically states that Netflix had nothing to do with net neutrality, rather, it states that the WRANGLE between Netflix and Comcast has nothing to do with net neutrality, which is much different than saying "Netflix has nothing to do with net neutrality". I'm pretty sure you know the difference.
 
Nothing you can say or post will make your previous statement accurate. Netflix has provided substantial material and moral support to the so-called "net neutrality" cause, so clearly they had SOMETHING to do with it. Not even the article you posted categorically states that Netflix had nothing to do with net neutrality, rather, it states that the WRANGLE between Netflix and Comcast has nothing to do with net neutrality, which is much different than saying "Netflix has nothing to do with net neutrality". I'm pretty sure you know the difference.



YOu are playing games. If you read back the reference was in regards to the netflix/comcast issue which is ofthen used incorrectly as a "net neutrality" argument
 
Back
Top Bottom