• 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!

F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules

Travis007 said:
Net Neutrality Is Setting The Stage For Internet Taxes - Forbes
Click to expand...

Travis, I want to see the taxes everyone else said were coming. Sort of like how Israel's Mossad wanted to see Iran's nuclear weapons? Like that. I want to see where they are. That's what was claimed would be the result of these rules. Where are the taxes? Do you know any of the fools who said we'd see new taxes? Can you tell them to come forward and tell us just what taxes we're going to be paying? Or can we say that like Mossad you have nothing? ;)
 
Hatuey said:
Travis, I want to see the taxes everyone else said were coming. Sort of like how Israel's Mossad wanted to see Iran's nuclear weapons? Like that. I want to see where they are. That's what was claimed would be the result of these rules. Where are the taxes? Do you know any of the fools who said we'd see new taxes? Can you tell them to come forward and tell us just what taxes we're going to be paying? Or can we say that like Mossad you have nothing? ;)
Click to expand...

Im done... Nice try and I give you credit for what you are trying to do here.. but it wont work..

again.. it has to be taxed.. and thats what this whole thing is about.. do you really think Obama cares about your internet experience..LOL

Forbes doest not make stuff up..this is reality
 
Travis007 said:
Im done... Nice try and I give you credit for what you are trying to do here.. but it wont work..

again.. it has to be taxed.. and thats what this whole thing is about.. do you really think Obama cares about your internet experience..LOL

Forbes doest not make stuff up..this is reality
Click to expand...

Lol, Travis, it's amazing that you can't tell me where the taxes are. It really is. However, that's no excuse for lashing out against Obama. All you have to tell me is where the taxes are. I can wait man, I swear I can.
 
Deuce said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/13/technology/fcc-releases-net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=0



We could read further on what the NYT says about it, but I much prefer the original source.

Here are the 400 pages of terrifying government takeover of the internet, wherein now only the government will be allowed to sell internet access and they will assume direct control over all content.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

Not that any of that is actually written into these rules, of course.

As I suggested many times in earlier discussions, and was met with vehement disagreement from the right-wingers here, the order does not apply any and all Title II regulations blindly. I was scoffed at when I suggested that the FCC can waive rules in areas they don't make sense to apply. I was right.


So, the scary internet tax is out. Numerous other provisions are exempted as well.

Our Republican friend on the FCC really wanted us to see this scary 400 page document? The bulk of it is just long-winded explanation of what it has chosen to do and why, much of which is actually electing not to apply many of the Title II regulations.

I haven't gotten through all of it yet, but I'm not seeing the end of the world here. Maybe some of the people predicting doomsday can point out specifically where the internet as we know it is going to dramatically change.
Click to expand...


lol, with the cheerleading.


from your article:

“set to decide what is acceptable on a case-by-case basis. The regulations include a subjective catchall provision, requiring ‘just and reasonable’ conduct.”



What is "just and reasonable"? That's up to the whims of the FCC.



basically what you are cheerleading is a 318 page document that hands the keys to the internet over to the FCC and it's whims. Rules are not hard coded and will be made on the spot.

So what does this mean? Players will look for advantages while accusing thier competition of unfair play. all jockeying for a government advantage.

ISP's will not invest in future tech knowing the FCC can now arbritrarilly veto thier plans at any time.


Now, in order to innovate and invest, these companies will need tacit approval from the FCC to move forward.


and you all thought it was 300 pages of how all packets will be treated equally

**** is that even in this thing?
 
CMPancake said:
The premature (and quite frankly, baseless) assertions made were from the anti-net neutrality camp. Even now with the reality of the situation shown to the world you still refuse to accept you were wrong. Move on.
Click to expand...



Net-neutrality you say?


What page in the 318 does it speak to all packets being equal?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Net-neutrality you say?


What page in the 318 does it speak to all packets being equal?
Click to expand...

The page that says ISP's can't throttle customers for their data packets.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/12/technology/net-neutrality-rules-explained.html

In the 2014 Open Internet NPRM, the commission sought comment on suggestions to impose a flat ban on paid prioritization services, including whether all paid prioritization practices, or some of them, could be treated as per se violations of the commercially reasonable standard or any other standard based on any source of legal authority. For reasons explained below, we conclude that paid prioritization network practices harm consumers, competition, and innovation, as well as create disincentives to promote broadband deployment and, as such, adopt a bright-line rule against such practices. Accordingly, today we ban arrangements in which the broadband service provider accepts consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party to manage the network in a manner that benefits particular content, applications, services, or devices. We also ban arrangements where a provider manages its network in a manner that favors the content, applications, services or devices of an affiliated entity. Any broadband provider that engages in such practices will be subject to enforcement action, including forfeitures and other penalties. We adopt the following rule banning paid prioritization arrangements: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization. “Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity.
-PARAGRAPH 125
Click to expand...
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
lol, with the cheerleading.


from your article:

“set to decide what is acceptable on a case-by-case basis. The regulations include a subjective catchall provision, requiring ‘just and reasonable’ conduct.”



What is "just and reasonable"? That's up to the whims of the FCC.



basically what you are cheerleading is a 318 page document that hands the keys to the internet over to the FCC and it's whims. Rules are not hard coded and will be made on the spot.

So what does this mean? Players will look for advantages while accusing thier competition of unfair play. all jockeying for a government advantage.

ISP's will not invest in future tech knowing the FCC can now arbritrarilly veto thier plans at any time.


Now, in order to innovate and invest, these companies will need tacit approval from the FCC to move forward.


and you all thought it was 300 pages of how all packets will be treated equally

**** is that even in this thing?
Click to expand...

Standard nonspecific doomsaying. I'm more interested in concrete results. Let me know when you have some.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Net-neutrality you say?


What page in the 318 does it speak to all packets being equal?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure "all packets being equal" is an entirely accurate way to describe it. Paid prioritization is excluded quite clearly, if that's what you were asking about.
 
CMPancake said:
Yes, the FCC ruled paid prioritization and throttling internet based purely on the data alone. The internet is safe and sound.
Click to expand...



U sure that's a good idea?

In the age off people working from home, should h.232 and sip traffic take priority over p2p?
 
Deuce said:
Standard nonspecific doomsaying. I'm more interested in concrete results. Let me know when you have some.
Click to expand...


It's that or its the difference between a system engineer level of understanding vs partisan luddite true believer cheerleading based on ignorance. *shrug*
 
Deuce said:
I'm not sure "all packets being equal" is an entirely accurate way to describe it. Paid prioritization is excluded quite clearly, if that's what you were asking about.
Click to expand...


You folks need to make up your minds.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
It's that or its the difference between a system engineer level of understanding vs partisan luddite true believer cheerleading based on ignorance. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Oddly enough you still haven't specified any particular result. I'm gonna continue to lean towards my original conclusion.
 
Deuce said:
Oddly enough you still haven't specified any particular result. I'm gonna continue to lean towards my original conclusion.
Click to expand...




This is perfect obama true believers, its so ambiguous you can claim whatever you want.

Do you think h.232, sip traffic should be treated equal to p2p traffic?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
This is perfect obama true believers, its so ambiguous you can claim whatever you want.

Do you think h.232, sip traffic should be treated equal to p2p traffic?
Click to expand...

Sure whatever you feel like deciding I've said. Just make it up.
 
tacomancer said:
guys, even if it does happen, the current federal tax on wireless is 5.82%. The average internet bill is around $40 I think. We are discussing $28/year.

This is really a big concern even if it did happen?
Click to expand...
You are confusing federal taxes with assessed fees that are generally called taxes.
And the federal taxes are already on the bills that are being paid now, whereas the fees that come with a classification as a Title II Utility are not.

That rate changes every quarter.
Last quarter it was 16.8%.
This quarter it is 17.1%
 
Deuce said:
I have no idea what you argued specifically.
Click to expand...
Well I know what you argued, and what you present now is not accurate.


Deuce said:
It was argued to me that the FCC must levy this tax, and clearly they are not required to. They can, but wont necessarily do it. That was my argument all along.
Click to expand...
And you as wrong now as you were then. They are "required".


Did you even bother to read what they passed?

They themselves acknowledge the "requirement" and are forbearing until other matters are settled.
Do you really not understand that?
They even indicated that they knew the forbearance was limited. :doh

Para 488 - page 235
or if you prefer, Scribe.

488. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for now we do forbear in part from the first sentence of section 254(d) and our associated rules insofar as they would immediately require new universal service contributions associated with broadband Internet access service. The first sentence of section 254(d) authorizes the Commission to impose universal service contributions requirements on telecommunications carriers—and, indeed, goes even further to require “[e]very telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services” to contribute.[SUP]1469[/SUP] Under that provision and our implementing rules, providers are required to make federal universal service support contributions for interstate telecommunications services, which now would include broadband Internet access service by virtue of the classification decision in this order. [SUP]1470[/SUP]

489. Consistent with our analysis of TRS contributions above, we note that on one hand, newly applying universal service contribution requirements on broadband Internet access service potentially could spread the base of contributions to the universal service fund, providing at least some benefit to customers of other services that contribute, and potentially also to the stability of the universal service fund through the broadening of the contribution base. We note, however, that the Commission has sought comment on a wide range of issues regarding how contributions should be assessed, including whether to continue to assess contributions based on revenues or to adopt alternative methodologies for determining contribution obligations.[SUP]1471[/SUP] We therefore conclude that limited forbearance is warranted at the present time in order to allow the Commission to consider the issues presented based on a full record in that docket.[SUP]1472[/SUP]​


It is a requirement and is only on a temporary hold. It is still going to be charged, as required, just as you were told.



Deuce said:
You are the one misstating things.
Click to expand...
:naughty
No, that would be you.
After you were shown it was "required", you then started arguing that you were okay with it being charged.
 
Excon said:
Well I know what you argued, and what you present now is not accurate.


And you as wrong now as you were then. They are "required".


Did you even bother to read what they passed?

They themselves acknowledge the "requirement" and are forbearing until other matters are settled.
Do you really not understand that?
They even indicated that they knew the forbearance was limited. :doh

Para 488 - page 235
or if you prefer, Scribe.

488. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for now we do forbear in part from the first sentence of section 254(d) and our associated rules insofar as they would immediately require new universal service contributions associated with broadband Internet access service. The first sentence of section 254(d) authorizes the Commission to impose universal service contributions requirements on telecommunications carriers—and, indeed, goes even further to require “[e]very telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services” to contribute.[SUP]1469[/SUP] Under that provision and our implementing rules, providers are required to make federal universal service support contributions for interstate telecommunications services, which now would include broadband Internet access service by virtue of the classification decision in this order. [SUP]1470[/SUP]

489. Consistent with our analysis of TRS contributions above, we note that on one hand, newly applying universal service contribution requirements on broadband Internet access service potentially could spread the base of contributions to the universal service fund, providing at least some benefit to customers of other services that contribute, and potentially also to the stability of the universal service fund through the broadening of the contribution base. We note, however, that the Commission has sought comment on a wide range of issues regarding how contributions should be assessed, including whether to continue to assess contributions based on revenues or to adopt alternative methodologies for determining contribution obligations.[SUP]1471[/SUP] We therefore conclude that limited forbearance is warranted at the present time in order to allow the Commission to consider the issues presented based on a full record in that docket.[SUP]1472[/SUP]​


It is a requirement and is only on a temporary hold. It is still going to be charged, as required, just as you were told.



:naughty
No, that would be you.
After you were shown it was "required", you then started arguing that you were okay with it being charged.
Click to expand...

I am ok with it being charged. But I also stated that I believed that exemptions were possible.

The FCC is using such an exemption. So, they are "required" but "not required" is your argument? Ok then. You claim they will eventually charge it, but I see no evidence of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom