• 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. Announces Plan to Repeal Net Neutrality

AlbqOwl said:
A free market unregulated internet has produced the most amazing technology of this generation of the world. It has grown to be such a huge and amazing thing with new innovations coming up every single day. To allow the government to control it gives the government dangerous powers that interfere with choices, options, opportunities, liberties of the people and stifles innovation as most government control does.
. . .Net neutrality seems like a simple concept: the company that links your computer/tablet/smartphone to the internet should not be able to discriminate among users and providers in the level of connectivity service provided. That is, we should all be able to send and receive the same number of bits of data per second.

This is a bad idea for the same reason that only having vanilla ice cream for sale is a bad idea: some people want, and are willing to pay for, something different. Forcing a one-size-fits-all solution on the Internet stifles innovation by blocking some companies from turning new ideas or business models into successful products. . .​
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffre...dea-supported-by-poor-analogies/#4249d7e2dc8f

Featured by Discovery Institute:
. . .Internet openness is chiefly a function not of regulation but of investment and innovation in bandwidth abundance. With enough bandwidth, all packets travel at the speed of light. But if regulation discourages investment, packets share congested pipes and all regulators can do is ration a scarce resource. . .​
https://stream.org/controlling-the-internet/
Click to expand...

That stuff looks like it is intentionally misleading.
There're already tiered plans for internet speeds.
Totally NOT what NN is about.

NN promotes innovation, entrepreneurs, and small business.
 
Verax said:
Under current NN rules that is exactly what happens. You pay for access and then watch whatever the **** you want. I don't think we need telecoms deciding what should be available to who for what price. They are the road, not ****ing traffic cops.
Click to expand...

Nope. Under Net Neutrality you have something akin to a cable company only selling cable plans that make you pay for all channels on their menu... but even worse, it also forces all cable providers to pay all networks for access.

The illusion is that Net Neutrality will save people money, but it's simply bull****. The vast majority of people pay for burst speeds from their ISP that they will never use, and are really only realized during large file downloads.
 
jmotivator said:
Nope. Under Net Neutrality you have something akin to a cable company only selling cable plans that make you pay for all channels on their menu... but even worse, it also forces all cable providers to pay all networks for access.

The illusion is that Net Neutrality will save people money, but it's simply bull****. The vast majority of people pay for burst speeds from their ISP that they will never use, and are really only realized during large file downloads.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you're talking about. ISPs provide access to the internet backbone. It does not matter if there are 1000 websites in the world or 100 billion trillion. You still have the same access to the internet backbone regardless of what is out there. You do not "pay for channels". You pay for access. What you're asking for is NN to be removed SO THAT COMCAST CAN CHARGE PEOPLE FOR CHANNELS (WEBSITES).
 
One important thing I think some people who say this is no big deal seem to miss:

Why would they push so hard to kill NN, unless they saw it as a way to increase their bottom line?
 
Lovebug said:
How's so?
Click to expand...

Trump supporters are more rurally concentrated than Democrats, and generally speaking there's less service provider competition in those areas, and therefore less incentive to follow NN principle in order to satisfy their customers. Yes, yes, there will be exceptions on both sides of this, but generally speaking that will be the norm.
 
jmotivator said:
Nope. Under Net Neutrality you have something akin to a cable company only selling cable plans that make you pay for all channels on their menu... but even worse, it also forces all cable providers to pay all networks for access.
Click to expand...
That's a wackadoodle, red herring analogy. imho ymmv
Further, per/data plans are already available under NN.
If you only want to pay for the data you use, those plans are already available under NN.
Ending NN is not at all related to that sort of billing analogy you're working with.
 
beancounter said:
One important thing I think some people who say this is no big deal seem to miss:

Why would they push so hard to kill NN, unless they saw it as a way to increase their bottom line?
Click to expand...

They LOVE customer service. Nothing makes Comcast happier than serving their customers with a smile. They just really, really want to give us better service at a lower price, guaranteed!
 
Simon W. Moon said:
That's a wackadoodle, red herring analogy. imho ymmv
Further, per/data plans are already available under NN.
If you only want to pay for the data you use, those plans are already available under NN.
Ending NN is not at all related to that sort of billing analogy you're working with.
Click to expand...

This is where the ISPs should focus. If they want to bring better service to their customers they should focus on their job: bandwidth, total throughput, and latency. I will gladly pay more for more bandwidth, higher total use limits, and lower latency.
 
Hatuey said:
Ummm, who is willing to pay more just to get tiered internet access? People on Wifi? Who is willing to pay more to get the same exact access they do now to sites now? Are you okay for access to DP being at a low rate of 1.99$ a month on a package on top of whatever else you already pay? Do you think you'll be able to post more or something? You do realize that the internet that produced all of that amazing technology did it under NN?

Don't get wrong, I love Forbes, but they're a joke when it comes to NN.

Lol.
Click to expand...

I provided two links to two credible sources both saying essentially the same thing. The free market almost always takes care of the consumer sooner or later. The government is rarely ever the consumer's friend except in those functions that it is not realistic for the states or the private sector to do. For instance regulating the safety of products imported into the country is a valid federal function. Regulating what products may be manufactured and sold--think regulation of toilets and light bulbs for instance--is not.

Nixon's federal regulation of speed limits to 55 mph in 1974 was modified slightly by the Reagan administration but, long after the oil crisis was over, the regulation was finally removed by an act of Congress I think in 1995? So it took 21 years for the 'temporary' regulation to be removed. According to independent study, the fuel savings was 0.5% but the extra CO2 and other harmful gasses created by the considerable slow down of traffic and the cost of extra man hours required to travel from Point A to Point B is incalculable.

Government regulations are mostly created by unelected, unappointed bureaucrats and are put out there as enforceable law complete with heavy fines and/or jail time. And most have a shelf life approximating that of a mop handle.

We do not want the government having the power to regulate the internet. It has done so very well without federal interference.
 
AlbqOwl said:
We do not want the government having the power to regulate the internet. It has done so very well without federal interference.
Click to expand...
Umm....

You do know that Net Neutrality is the current state of affairs that Pai is wanting to change, right?
The current Admin wants to do away with the conditions that have allowed the internet to do "very well"—iow, Net Neutrality.

Just tryin' to help here, cause you seem really, really lost on this issue.
 
Verax said:
This is where the ISPs should focus. If they want to bring better service to their customers they should focus on their job: bandwidth, total throughput, and latency. I will gladly pay more for more bandwidth, higher total use limits, and lower latency.
Click to expand...
Why do that when you can make more money by repackaging what you already have?
All for the low, low price of some politicians.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Umm....

You do know that Net Neutrality is the current state of affairs that Pai is wanting to change, right?
The current Admin wants to do away with the conditions that have allowed the internet to do "very well"—iow, Net Neutrality.

Just tryin' to help here, cause you seem really, really lost on this issue.
Click to expand...

This has been repeated infinity times in every single NN thread. The same DP posters, albqowl included, re-enter the same thread and repeat the same false claim in every single one of them.
 
jmotivator said:
Let's put that to the test. Let's say that you are currently paying $130 a month for 100mbs internet service. Let's say that you use about 5mbps streaming high def NetFlix and Hulu, and about 1mbps browsing sites like DP.

Now say the same company providing your ISP offers you a plan that is $40/month, full HD NetFlix, Youtube and Hulu and unlimited non-streaming internet, with the only caveat being that the 100mbps burst bandwidth you used to pay for is limited to 2gb total monthly. Would that be preferable to you?

The problem with NN thinking is you can only envision things costing more, and can't conceived of the savings realized by only paying for the minimal actual utilization that you actually use in an average day/month.

It's like the tiered system with cable television. The cable providers pay the various networks money for their services, and then bundle them in to packages that they think you might want. The issue the vast majority of people have with Cable pricing is not the lack of access, it is having to pay the cable company for channels you never watch. Imagine how much cheaper cable would be if you only had to pay for the handful of channels you wanted to watch. Under the Net Neutrality model that couldn't actually happen.
Click to expand...

So you're imagining a future in which ISPs charge you less and in turn make less money because they're so very fond of you and want you to save? The really obvious question is that, if a company like Comcast had the option to sell you an internet package that only consisted of the content you wanted/chose, why would they do that? Are you incapable of understanding that this is a move meant to make corporations more money and not to help consumers? How could anyone even try to dispute that?
 
Cardinal said:
Ironically, it'll be Trump supporters who'll be hit hardest by this. And having been thoroughly unable to understand what net neutrality is up to this point, they'll be similarly baffled when their bills start going up.
Click to expand...

It's Trump supporters that are hardest hit by most of his policies (especially healthcare and the so-called tax cuts) They are so busy sipping on the snake oil they bought, they are not paying attention. Then again, they weren't exactly the most knowledgeable voters (paying attention) before.
 
Cardinal said:
This has been repeated infinity times in every single NN thread. The same DP posters, albqowl included, re-enter the same thread and repeat the same false claim in every single one of them.
Click to expand...

They're probably paid to post along with a few dozen others on here.
 
jmotivator said:
What is it you think has improved in internet access since NetNeutrality regulation was codified in 2015?
Click to expand...

That is an false argument. Net neutrality was designed to stop ISP's from controlling the internet, controlling what you and I see online. Instead of ISP merely providing access like all free countries do, we become like China, except the control is done by private interests.
 
Cardinal said:
Do you care that it encroaches on state rights, or do those go out the window too when it appears that something makes liberal tears flow?
Click to expand...

I believe in private rights before the rights of any governmental body. Do you support state rights over individual rights?
 
Lovebug said:
Can't stick your head in the sand and hope it goes well.
Click to expand...

I don't, I just don't support the "sky is falling" scenarios of people regarding the repeal of a regulation that has only been around for 2 years.
 
Cardinal said:
This has been repeated infinity times in every single NN thread. The same DP posters, albqowl included, re-enter the same thread and repeat the same false claim in every single one of them.
Click to expand...

Thats the problem with group thinking, someone exploits the group and we get to read it on here. I find it interesting to see a message put out by Trumps camp, then watch it take over the minds of his followers like a virus. Then no matter what you say to them they will not listen since they cannot think for themselves anymore. Any argument to them comes from the enemy who Trump has made clear they should never agree with or listen too. Trumps control over his followers is alarming, its like a cult.
 
jmotivator said:
I believe in private rights before the rights of any governmental body. Do you support state rights over individual rights?
Click to expand...

Okay, so state rights get thrown under the bus for the benefit of Federal rights then. And which private rights are you referring to?
 
Verax said:
You have no idea what you're talking about. ISPs provide access to the internet backbone. It does not matter if there are 1000 websites in the world or 100 billion trillion. You still have the same access to the internet backbone regardless of what is out there. You do not "pay for channels". You pay for access. What you're asking for is NN to be removed SO THAT COMCAST CAN CHARGE PEOPLE FOR CHANNELS (WEBSITES).
Click to expand...

LOL. It is YOUR argument that says we will be paying for internet like cable channels. My whole point is that given the usage characteristics of the vast majority of internet users there is a VERY good argument to be made for tiered internet service over making everyone pay for full-always access to everything. If you only use your internet for browsing the internet and streaming HD video why pay for 100mbps burst access? If you are an video streamer why pay 100 mbps download in order to get 5 mbps upload? Why do they have to pay for 5 mbps upload to anywhere on the internet if they only are interested in a pipe to Youtube and/or Twitch?

And why not allow Comcast to offer websites as channels if it means that most users can pay far less for the internet access to the few websites they actually use? Why do you hate poor people?
 
jmotivator said:
I believe in private rights before the rights of any governmental body. Do you support state rights over individual rights?
Click to expand...

The main purpose of our government is to protect individual rights. The repeal of net neutrality is a direct attack on individual rights. If the FCC reclassifies the internet as class 1, then even if laws were made to protect individual right concerning the internet the FCC would be powerless to enforce those laws. Essentially ISP's would be able to do whatever they pleased. WHich would mean that they would not need to provide services to rural America since the main market is in large cities.

Oh and kiss innovation goodbye.

https://www.wired.com/2017/05/fcc-votes-begin-dismantling-net-neutrality/

"While bigger players like YouTube and Netflix can probably afford to sponsor data for their customers, newer companies will be forced not only to spend extra money in order to be competitive but strike deals with every major internet provider. Companies unable to get a meeting with a provider could be effectively locked out of the market. That’s great news for established companies, but it would be bad for competition and innovation."
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Umm....

You do know that Net Neutrality is the current state of affairs that Pai is wanting to change, right?
The current Admin wants to do away with the conditions that have allowed the internet to do "very well"—iow, Net Neutrality.

Just tryin' to help here, cause you seem really, really lost on this issue.
Click to expand...

Net neutrality has been in effect for only two years--it was first enforced in June 2015. It does have some arguable benefits for consumers but the downside is that the free market that has produced so many things for us can be stifled or deincentivized by regulation that disallows innovators from being compensated for their efforts. It makes sense for the federal government to regulate broadcasting that crosses state lines and in which a 50 watt station could obliterate a small town station. There is no such need to regulate the internet for that reason.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nelson...ct-what-consumers-should-expect/#70169426c388
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom