• 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!

Net Neutrality Goes Into Effect

austrianecon said:
It's not assume, it's fact. Compliance cost is always passed on to the the consumer.
Click to expand...

Let me know when you have evidence that there are any compliance costs.
 
Deuce said:
Let me know when you have evidence that there are any compliance costs.
Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure what they need to comply with that is going to cost so much money. It's not like they can actually hide the throttling itself or build any new infrastructure to monitor it, or even so much as create any new software to ensure throttling isn't happening. So what the hell do they need to comply with other than not charging people depending on the content that they view?
 
Deuce said:
Let me know when you have evidence that there are any compliance costs.
Click to expand...

There will be compliance cost for these two reasons.

1) No more routing (shaping) traffic. I.E. someone downloading a video vs someone checking email (packet priority).

2) FCC's new definition of broadband (25/3).

Local areas have to be upgraded to support this and these costs will be past on. If you don't think so.. you are crazy. Hell, I got a $2.50 a month hike for Regional Sports Fee this year because Fox, NBC (Comcast) and ESPN (ABC) are claiming Cable companies can't do À la carte when it comes to their products. So if you want ABC, FOX or NBC (Comcast) owned channels, you have to pay the RSF or lose the channels. Then every cable company has hiked their modem fees in 2015.

Even the LA times ran this article in April.
 
jonny5 said:
Net Neutrality Goes Into Effect: What Consumers Should Expect - Forbes

If you havent already you can read the entire 400 pages of rulings by the FCC where they unilaterally declared that they have the power to regulate the internet.

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

Not a court, or a democratically chosen body, but a bunch of bureaucrats. But anyway, its too late. The internet is now under the observation of the US govt and theyve come to help. Expect higher prices, stifled innovation, and govt monopolies.
Click to expand...

Yes, the internet was such a disappointment. I'd hear people talking all day about how we need government to get involved, since the internet wasn't doing very well (other than exploding across the globe) and we know that once the government sticks it's big, iron fist in things, they always get so much better.

I can't wait for the cheaper, faster internet that is sure to be the result of this action. Blah.
 
austrianecon said:
There will be compliance cost for these two reasons.

1) No more routing (shaping) traffic. I.E. someone downloading a video vs someone checking email (packet priority).
Click to expand...
Not actually correct.

2) FCC's new definition of broadband (25/3).
Click to expand...
Why does this raise costs?

Local areas have to be upgraded to support this and these costs will be past on. If you don't think so.. you are crazy. Hell, I got a $2.50 a month hike for Regional Sports Fee this year because Fox, NBC (Comcast) and ESPN (ABC) are claiming Cable companies can't do À la carte when it comes to their products. So if you want ABC, FOX or NBC (Comcast) owned channels, you have to pay the RSF or lose the channels. Then every cable company has hiked their modem fees in 2015.

Even the LA times ran this article in April.
Click to expand...

The FCC has specifically declined to assess this fee.
 
Hatuey said:
I'm not exactly sure what they need to comply with that is going to cost so much money. It's not like they can actually hide the throttling itself or build any new infrastructure to monitor it, or even so much as create any new software to ensure throttling isn't happening. So what the hell do they need to comply with other than not charging people depending on the content that they view?
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, you are one of those people that assumes the current internet backbone can support 100% net neutrality. Cable Companies (use to since rules became official yesterday) pay companies like Level 3 for priority vs non priority. Basically what it was that Cable company A forward certain types of packets (priority) and route the rest around it's hubs before it would send it to say Level 3. So they got biggest bang for their buck (business customers would be happy and those Netflix hogs would be pissed off). Now there is no priority so a company like Level 3 and your Cable Company has to expand it's capabilities to handle it.

Think of it this way.. remember the California electricity crisis? Companies then were actually tampering with supply vs demand. You had rolling blackouts and such. Enron being the biggest offender. Today with the internet it's the opposite. Companies are in a situation where demand is outpacing supply and the upgrade time is about 2 years in time. DOCSIS 3.1 will help but we are 2 years before that happens.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not happy about my crappy 16/1 but I live in Ohio and Ohio has been the red headed step child of every Cable Company who's had a foot print. Insight upgraded DOCSIS 3.0 but its other services weren't upgraded so for the last 2 years Time Warner has been trying to upgrade it.. Time Warner had to rebuild Insights systems in Columbus and surrounding areas. So now I can upgrade to 50/5 internet and get Time Warner features. While other Time Warner areas are getting options of 300/20 internet and I was flat out told it won't be until 2017 in Columbus before its an option because they have to lay a whole new network.
 
Deuce said:
Not actually correct.
Click to expand...

How is that not correct? Is that not Net Neutrality? Treating all packets equally?

Deuce said:
Why does this raise costs?
Click to expand...

It raises cost because the old standard of 4/1 was just increased by 5 fold/3 fold. That means to qualify in selling broadband you need to meet that standard. Means more lines need to be ran. You think lines are laid for free? Hubs are build for free? No, it will go to the consumers. Areas in yellow meet the standards.

Deuce said:
The FCC has specifically declined to assess this fee.
Click to expand...

As of yet. Last year what the FCC did was hike phone fees to negate hikes for the first few years.
 
As the conventional Internet starts to suffer, people will simply turn away from it, to other networking technologies.

Particularly, private, dedicated, fiber optic and low power, massively distributed, WiFi (below the FCC regulation RF emissions limit ) LANs, instead of Coaxial IP WANs.

Wealthy neighborhoods, and upscale apartment buildings will start offering LANs to have private, unregulated, unmonitored communications between well-to-do people, and the common man will be shut out.

Financial Trading will begin to occur, between the people with true-Wealth to trade, within these dedicated, private, LAN networks, and along with it will be unlimited, uncensored Political discourse.

As the technology gains usage by the wealthy elite, it will get cheaper to buy, because allot more of it is being manufactured.

As the technology get cheaper, many common people, interested in un-throttled MMO Gaming access, will adopt these LANs for circles of friends to game together.

As the common people begin to invest in the LAN tech for gaming, they will also begin to use the freedom to have un-Leftie-Censored Political Discourse.

The Lefties seem to think that "Net-Neutrality" is going to give them a backdoor opportunity to shut down all of that Politically Incorrect discourse, giving them censorship control of political speech and thought.

The PC Censorship of the Internet will drive people to escape the Internet, in the same way that the PC Censorship of the MSM media drove people away from the MSM into Internet Blogs and News forums.

The PC Censorship will fail!

-
 
Last edited:
The problem is not so much about this regulation. It is about all the future regulations that will occur now that the government has decided to mess with it.
 
jonny5 said:
Net Neutrality Goes Into Effect: What Consumers Should Expect - Forbes

If you havent already you can read the entire 400 pages of rulings by the FCC where they unilaterally declared that they have the power to regulate the internet.

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

Not a court, or a democratically chosen body, but a bunch of bureaucrats. But anyway, its too late. The internet is now under the observation of the US govt and theyve come to help. Expect higher prices, stifled innovation, and govt monopolies.
Click to expand...

We already have higher prices, stifled innovation, govt-subsidized monopolies (i. e. Comcast).
 
MrT said:
To be fair, the way the internet providers work, they essentially have regional monopolies in most areas of the country already. That was one of the primary reasons for the passage of Net Neutrality.
Click to expand...
Your contention is that NN will increase competition?
 
austrianecon said:
How is that not correct? Is that not Net Neutrality? Treating all packets equally?
Click to expand...
That is the layman's way of putting it, and the reality is somewhat more complicated.



It raises cost because the old standard of 4/1 was just increased by 5 fold/3 fold. That means to qualify in selling broadband you need to meet that standard. Means more lines need to be ran. You think lines are laid for free? Hubs are build for free? No, it will go to the consumers. Areas in yellow meet the standards.
Click to expand...
It doesn't mean you have to sell that speed. It means you have to have that speed to call it broadband.

As of yet. Last year what the FCC did was hike phone fees to negate hikes for the first few years.
Click to expand...

I can only worry so much about hypotheticals. In either case, if the FCC decided to assess the USF tax for internet access, I would support the GOP-held Congress' inevitable legislation to reverse that.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Your contention is that NN will increase competition?
Click to expand...

He...didn't say anything of the sort? :confused:

Internet access is more or less a natural monopoly, which is why stricter regulation is required to prevent abuse of that power. We'd all love it if there was the same amount of competition in internet access as there was in, say, making televisions, but that just isn't technically feasible at this time.
 
fmw said:
No need to stop there. I can't think of single government function that works better than it did in, say, the 1950's when government actually tried to do the right thing.
Click to expand...
Like undermine, destabilize and overthrow democratically elected governments, for which we now bear the consequences? Brilliant reasoning, devoid of anything factual or intelligent but brilliant none the less.
 
Deuce said:
He...didn't say anything of the sort? :confused:
Click to expand...
He said that NN came about because of the virtual monopolies.
I figure that means that NN was meant to work against the virtual monopolies.

What do you think he means NN relationship to virtual monopolies is?
That the NN will lessen competition?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
He said that NN came about because of the virtual monopolies.
I figure that means that NN was meant to work against the virtual monopolies.

What do you think he means NN relationship to virtual monopolies is?
That the NN will lessen competition?
Click to expand...

Sorry, was too slow editing in the explanation.

Internet access is more or less a natural monopoly, which is why stricter regulation is required to prevent abuse of that power. We'd all love it if there was the same amount of competition in internet access as there was in, say, making televisions, but that just isn't technically feasible at this time.
Click to expand...

It's not that net neutrality increases or decreases competition in delivering internet data, it's that the natural monopoly of the ISP means that net neutrality is important.

Incidentally, net neutrality does support competition of the data itself - paid prioritization can stack the deck in favor of bigger companies able to afford it, making it harder for a Facebook to arise that outcompetes MySpace. Or DeuceBook stands a better chance against Facebook

DeuceBook: A website for ****heads to spew ****. Given the number of those on the internet, I'm going to be rich!!!
 
The Man said:
My biggest fear is that now that the FCC has their foot in the door, they'll eventually impose decency standards and censorship on the internet like they do on radio and television. I hope that never happens, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit. You probably want to be careful what you wish for when the FCC and government is involved.
Click to expand...

The FCC has had their foot in the door forever. So is there anything in the net neutrality rules that makes that more likely? I haven't seen anything. Just the opposite. What it actually does is strengthen the idea that ISPs are required to treat all traffic on the same terms and are at least less allowed to pick and choose which traffic gets priority. Most of the free speech, open internet groups strongly supported net neutrality, and I am positive all those groups would strongly oppose any rules containing content that isn't somehow demonstrably dangerous - e.g. trafficking in nuclear weapons or something - which I'm pretty sure the Feds have always had the authority to shut down.

And the thing is the public really doesn't want any part of 'censoring' the Internet, or decency standards for that matter. Maybe the religious conservatives would support getting pron off their kids' computers, but that's about it. The rest of the country is watching pron, and n*de celebrities, and all the rest....
 
prometeus said:
Like undermine, destabilize and overthrow democratically elected governments, for which we now bear the consequences? Brilliant reasoning, devoid of anything factual or intelligent but brilliant none the less.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Kurmugeon said:
As the conventional Internet starts to suffer, people will simply turn away from it, to other networking technologies.

Particularly, private, dedicated, fiber optic and low power, massively distributed, WiFi (below the FCC regulation RF emissions limit ) LANs, instead of Coaxial IP WANs.

Wealthy neighborhoods, and upscale apartment buildings will start offering LANs to have private, unregulated, unmonitored communications between well-to-do people, and the common man will be shut out.

Financial Trading will begin to occur, between the people with true-Wealth to trade, within these dedicated, private, LAN networks, and along with it will be unlimited, uncensored Political discourse.

As the technology gains usage by the wealthy elite, it will get cheaper to buy, because allot more of it is being manufactured.

As the technology get cheaper, many common people, interested in un-throttled MMO Gaming access, will adopt these LANs for circles of friends to game together.

As the common people begin to invest in the LAN tech for gaming, they will also begin to use the freedom to have un-Leftie-Censored Political Discourse.

The Lefties seem to think that "Net-Neutrality" is going to give them a backdoor opportunity to shut down all of that Politically Incorrect discourse, giving them censorship control of political speech and thought.

The PC Censorship of the Internet will drive people to escape the Internet, in the same way that the PC Censorship of the MSM media drove people away from the MSM into Internet Blogs and News forums.

The PC Censorship will fail!

-
Click to expand...

Just curious how net neutrality facilitates us lefties keeping your right wing political viewpoints off the internet? I'd love to know how it works so we can eliminate all dissent from our leftie views on the web and eventually take over the world!
 
JasperL said:
The FCC has had their foot in the door forever. So is there anything in the net neutrality rules that makes that more likely? I haven't seen anything. Just the opposite. What it actually does is strengthen the idea that ISPs are required to treat all traffic on the same terms and are at least less allowed to pick and choose which traffic gets priority. Most of the free speech, open internet groups strongly supported net neutrality, and I am positive all those groups would strongly oppose any rules containing content that isn't somehow demonstrably dangerous - e.g. trafficking in nuclear weapons or something - which I'm pretty sure the Feds have always had the authority to shut down.

And the thing is the public really doesn't want any part of 'censoring' the Internet, or decency standards for that matter. Maybe the religious conservatives would support getting pron off their kids' computers, but that's about it. The rest of the country is watching pron, and n*de celebrities, and all the rest....
Click to expand...

I really hope you are correct! :)
 
Kurmugeon said:
As the conventional Internet starts to suffer, people will simply turn away from it, to other networking technologies.

Particularly, private, dedicated, fiber optic and low power, massively distributed, WiFi (below the FCC regulation RF emissions limit ) LANs, instead of Coaxial IP WANs.

Wealthy neighborhoods, and upscale apartment buildings will start offering LANs to have private, unregulated, unmonitored communications between well-to-do people, and the common man will be shut out.

Financial Trading will begin to occur, between the people with true-Wealth to trade, within these dedicated, private, LAN networks, and along with it will be unlimited, uncensored Political discourse.

As the technology gains usage by the wealthy elite, it will get cheaper to buy, because allot more of it is being manufactured.

As the technology get cheaper, many common people, interested in un-throttled MMO Gaming access, will adopt these LANs for circles of friends to game together.

As the common people begin to invest in the LAN tech for gaming, they will also begin to use the freedom to have un-Leftie-Censored Political Discourse.

The Lefties seem to think that "Net-Neutrality" is going to give them a backdoor opportunity to shut down all of that Politically Incorrect discourse, giving them censorship control of political speech and thought.

The PC Censorship of the Internet will drive people to escape the Internet, in the same way that the PC Censorship of the MSM media drove people away from the MSM into Internet Blogs and News forums.

The PC Censorship will fail!

-
Click to expand...

So I'm guessing there are those that will view it as success.
 
Montecresto said:
I'm sorry j5, but I'm not sure I understand the point of the question?
Click to expand...

Your statement was

"Net Neutrality means no discrimination, and it protects Internet users' ability to do or download whatever they want online without interference from the phone or cable company."

And Id like to know where that ability would be if it wasnt for the phone company or the cable company providing them the internet in the first place. It certainly wasnt the internet user who developed the system, and invested trillions in setting it up.
 
JasperL said:
Just curious how net neutrality facilitates us lefties keeping your right wing political viewpoints off the internet? I'd love to know how it works so we can eliminate all dissent from our leftie views on the web and eventually take over the world!
Click to expand...

Much like the FCC attempted to control speech on the radio with the fairness doctrine. The govt decides what 'lawful content' is, what is fair, and then sets about regulating everything else into the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom