• 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

jmotivator said:
Wrong, you haven't proven that Amazon is different than an ISP. Your attempt was easily refuted. Your followup hand wave is even less compelling.
Click to expand...

Amazon doesnt charge you to look at different parts of their site. Want to buy sports stuff? You need to buy the sports package! As I said false equivalence.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Net neutrality has been in effect for only two years--it was first enforced in June 2015.
Click to expand...
In name and technically, you are correct.
But a rose is a rose.

Before we had "Net Neutrality" we had "Open Internet" and before that we had "Network Freedom".
The conditions which will be changed by removing NN, the conditions which allowed the internet to do "so very well", have been in effect much longer than the term "Net Neutrality".
Allowing open, even access to the web has been a condition of the internet since long before 2015.


I must concede the technical correction.


Surely, you will concede that it's much quicker to use NN as a stand-in for "allowing ISP subscriber's traffic from any site to be handled with the same priority as the ISP subscriber's traffic from any other site".
:shrug:


AlbqOwl said:
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
Click to expand...
You're right that that is not the reason to protect consumer's right to have their web traffic from any site to be handled with the same priority as their web traffic from any other site.
I'll give you that.




If you want to preserve the freedom of marketplace which is the internet, then you want an ISP subscriber's traffic from any site to be handled with the same priority as that subscriber's traffic from any other site.




Once ISPs are no longer required to treat an ISP subscriber's traffic from any site with the same priority as that subscriber's traffic from any other site, a handful of ISPs will control almost every American's ability to access to world-wide marketplace—the Internet.
Sure you'll still be buy a domain name and rent your rackspace.
But any and every ISP will be able to

  • charge you to let Americans visit your site,
  • charge your potential customers in the United States to even look at your site, and
  • keep Americans from being able to access your site.



These additional fees for small and mid-sized businesses and their potential customers ain't good for small businesses, nor mid-sized businesses nor their potential customers.


Allowing a handful of ISPs to control America's ability to access web sites stifles the market.




You think the MSM are bad now?
Wait until they inhibit or block access to alternative news sites.
 
Last edited:
backpacker said:
They are not going to go through all the trouble of throttling small businesses. I am convinced that anything people state in support of maintaining the current rules has any truth to it whatsoever. Gamers are just pissed they may have to come out of mom's basement into the daylight.
Click to expand...
The ISPs will not choose to make more money because...?

Where these protections are not, the web is being divided up into packages.
If your small business isn't in your potential customer's package, your potential customer will face additional barriers to access your website.

What is it that will prevent our ISPs from following similar strategies in their efforts to increase their revenue?
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
I've already posted several links explaining that. Just as cable companies offer various services for a fee for a select audience who wants those services, just as auto makers charge for extra equipment on their cars that only a few people want, just as many enterprises offer group or bulk rates for all sorts of things, big pharma can charge big prices to cover their expense to develop a new drug, if internet providers aren't allow to do the same thing it could have a chilling effect on those who would otherwise have incentive to get into the business.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's exactly the opposite effect. If Verizon has a contract that gives Netflix faster speeds because Netflix pays them $35 million a year, the "chilling effect" is on start-ups that want to compete against Netflix that now have slower speeds to their potential customers.

As it is now, ISPs are forbidden to discriminate and that fosters competition.
 
Last edited:
So apparently Justin Trudeau has decided to weigh in and says he is very concerned and that the move does not make any sense. These actions will not just affect the United Sates but other nations as well. Canada has been moving in the opposite direction applying more strict net neutrality regulations through the CRTC.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I've already posted several links explaining that. Just as cable companies offer various services for a fee for a select audience who wants those services, just as auto makers charge for extra equipment on their cars that only a few people want, just as many enterprises offer group or bulk rates for all sorts of things, big pharma can charge big prices to cover their expense to develop a new drug, if internet providers aren't allow to do the same thing it could have a chilling effect on those who would otherwise have incentive to get into the business.
Click to expand...

They can, that is why they have residential and business services. But if net neutrality is eliminated an companies can give their products priority access that would disincentive business, they have tried it. One of the big telecoms tried zero-rating their own streaming service to create an unfair advantage and even before that they throttled and blocked services like Skype that were a threat to services they were trying to push.
 
Objective Voice said:
As another poster stated, rural areas will be hit hardest by the NN decision. Folks don't seem to grasp the real fact that most of our internet services is provided via cable companies that also provide telecommunications services. The days of the small, independent ISP is pretty much non-existent. A few are still around, but if it wasn't for the fact that they began to bundle Internet, cable and telephone services early and captured a decent portion of market share, most of these small-market ISPs wouldn't be around today.

Two good examples:

1) Where I live we have HiWaay Internet Services, WOW! Internet Services (formerly Knology Cable and Internet) and Comcast. I don't know how many of you remember EarthLink, but it's still around in the rural area south of where I live. HiWaay is pretty much gone now and Wow! is having a difficult time competing because of Comcast.

2) In comes Google Fiber! Because they offer a superior streaming service, Comcast will certainly lose market share. But that has nothing to do with NN and everything to do with one company's ability to provide a better online (streaming) experience over another at a competitive price.

Now, I don't have cable (I cut the cord years ago), but I do have Internet service through Wow! However, I haven't been satisfied with their service for a while. As such, I've already registered to have Google Fiber installed once they lay fiber optic cabling in my area (due this winter/spring). Net Neutrality had nothing to do with this. Choice and competition did! My concerning is that in some areas, they won't have much of a choice.
Click to expand...

Well Comcast is trying their hardest to kill Google Fiber. If Google did not have basically unlimited money they probably would have disappeared by now.
 
Deuce said:
So, repeal all product safety laws, yes? Otherwise tyranny is inevitable.
Click to expand...

And that my friend is a classic example of a straw man argument and a non sequitur one at that.
 
MTAtech said:
Actually, that's exactly the opposite effect. If Verizon has a contract that gives Netflix faster speeds because Netflix pays them $35 million a year, the "chilling effect" is on start-ups that want to compete against Netflix that now have slower speeds to their potential customers.

As it is now, ISPs are forbidden to discriminate and that fosters competition.
Click to expand...

So where is all the competition that has emerged since net neutrality became law??????
 
Carjosse said:
They can, that is why they have residential and business services. But if net neutrality is eliminated an companies can give their products priority access that would disincentive business, they have tried it. One of the big telecoms tried zero-rating their own streaming service to create an unfair advantage and even before that they throttled and blocked services like Skype that were a threat to services they were trying to push.
Click to expand...

No matter how much regulation is passed, there will always be opportunists who won't play by the rules and are clever enough to hide what they are doing so that they don't have to. But the internet has done very very well all these decades without federal government regulation. I do not believe that it will do better with it. And I strongly oppose giving the government power to regulate it to the point the government decides how it will be used. That would be a very dangerous thing.
 
AlbqOwl said:
And that my friend is a classic example of a straw man argument and a non sequitur one at that.
Click to expand...

I'm merely expanding on the slippery slope fallacy.

Why don't product safety laws lead to abuse of power?
Why does Net Neutrality automatically lead to abuse of power?
 
worksforpigs said:
View attachment 67225211
Click to expand...

If Obama declared breathing to be good for you, you'd pass out.

It's sad that so many conservatives are arguing against their own interests purely to spite liberals. It's rural voters who are going to be hurt the most by this change.
 
AlbqOwl said:
No matter how much regulation is passed, there will always be opportunists who won't play by the rules and are clever enough to hide what they are doing so that they don't have to. But the internet has done very very well all these decades without federal government regulation. I do not believe that it will do better with it. And I strongly oppose giving the government power to regulate it to the point the government decides how it will be used. That would be a very dangerous thing.
Click to expand...

That is the entire point of regulation, there are still violators of OSHA regulations but what this does is allow the government to investigate it and put a stop to it. It is called innovation in ****ing over consumers. Take video game lootboxes for example, they are really only a more recent thing but they are becoming a massive exploitation problem and now governments are trying to step in and regulate it. Is OSHA a slippery slope of government regulation and do consumers and employees not have any rights?
 
Deuce said:
I'm merely expanding on the slippery slope fallacy.

Why don't product safety laws lead to abuse of power?
Why does Net Neutrality automatically lead to abuse of power?
Click to expand...

Nobody said it automatically leads to abuse of power. What is argued that power does lead to appetite for more power and that sometimes--not always--absolute power leads to abuse. Example: Nancy Pelosi wanting to make it mandatory that all automobiles and trucks be equipped with backup cameras. Those are a nice feature and I appreciate ours, but making in mandatory? To me that is overreach.
 
Carjosse said:
That is the entire point of regulation, there are still violators of OSHA regulations but what this does is allow the government to investigate it and put a stop to it. It is called innovation in ****ing over consumers. Take video game lootboxes for example, they are really only a more recent thing but they are becoming a massive exploitation problem and now governments are trying to step in and regulate it. Is OSHA a slippery slope of government regulation and do consumers and employees not have any rights?
Click to expand...

Yes, OSHA, while some regulations are very good, is very often a slippery slope of government regulation leaving little room for common sense. As are many environmental regulations and product safety regulations. Don't you get tired of drug commercials that require the seller to spend 25 seconds of a 30 second spot listing all the side effects that might occur with that drug? Why not a simple reminder that the drug can have serious side effects and should not be taken without consulting our doctor and reading the information attached?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Nobody said it automatically leads to abuse of power. What is argued that power does lead to appetite for more power and that sometimes--not always--absolute power leads to abuse. Example: Nancy Pelosi wanting to make it mandatory that all automobiles and trucks be equipped with backup cameras. Those are a nice feature and I appreciate ours, but making in mandatory? To me that is overreach.
Click to expand...

Ok great. So you don't like mandatory backup cameras. Oppose such a law.

But "mandatory backup cameras might happen in the future" is not an argument against mandatory seat belts.

You're saying the government might do some unspecified bad thing if net neutrality stays around. That's not persuasive. Net neutrality is an important policy that we should keep.

Maybe it would help me understand your argument if you gave examples of what future regulations you're worried about.
 
Verax said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html



Absolutely nauseating. It looks like this is going to be it. I have this morbid curiosity of how this will play out. If they repeal NN and then begin exploiting their position people are going to freak the **** out.
Click to expand...

We have not had a free and open society with average citizen represenatation for some time now, this is but another step along a continued trajectory. And still the american people refuse to straighten their backs. I rather doubt this will do it either; push the people to at last respond and resist en masse.
 
Deuce said:
Ok great. So you don't like mandatory backup cameras. Oppose such a law.

But "mandatory backup cameras might happen in the future" is not an argument against mandatory seat belts.

You're saying the government might do some unspecified bad thing if net neutrality stays around. That's not persuasive. Net neutrality is an important policy that we should keep.

Maybe it would help me understand your argument if you gave examples of what future regulations you're worried about.
Click to expand...

We should all by now understand what Clinton's deregulation of the FCC has done to american society.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Yes, OSHA, while some regulations are very good, is very often a slippery slope of government regulation leaving little room for common sense. As are many environmental regulations and product safety regulations. Don't you get tired of drug commercials that require the seller to spend 25 seconds of a 30 second spot listing all the side effects that might occur with that drug? Why not a simple reminder that the drug can have serious side effects and should not be taken without consulting our doctor and reading the information attached?
Click to expand...

Because in Canada and most other countries they are just banned entirely. Net neutrality is for the protection of not just consumers but any other company besides the ISPs, it is in everyone's best interests from the individual to large corporations. It is what allows competition and fosters innovation.
 
Last edited:
Verax said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html

Absolutely nauseating. It looks like this is going to be it. I have this morbid curiosity of how this will play out. If they repeal NN and then begin exploiting their position people are going to freak the **** out.
Click to expand...

This is imo one of many perfect examples of why we should not have the FCC, EPA and other regulatory agencies in place. This is the kind of things that the Congress and Senate should be deciding on. Not government agencies that are not answerable to The People. It would be fine if all these agencies did was scientific studies which reported results of such studies to the Congress/Senate. But they also make regulations. Which is supposed to be the job of Congress/Senate. That is why they are considered the "Legislative Branch" of our government. They're supposed to legislate. Not pass the buck off to someone else so that they can have less reasons to be called accountable for things that The People do not want.
 
Kal'Stang said:
This is imo one of many perfect examples of why we should not have the FCC, EPA and other regulatory agencies in place. This is the kind of things that the Congress and Senate should be deciding on. Not government agencies that are not answerable to The People. It would be fine if all these agencies did was scientific studies which reported results of such studies to the Congress/Senate. But they also make regulations. Which is supposed to be the job of Congress/Senate. That is why they are considered the "Legislative Branch" of our government. They're supposed to legislate. Not pass the buck off to someone else so that they can have less reasons to be called accountable for things that The People do not want.
Click to expand...

But the Congress and Senate has no way to enforce these rules without the creation of a government agency, hence the execute part of the executive branch. There is no point in creating regulations if there is nobody to enforce them. There is also the problem that the legislators are not experts on these topics. These agencies were created by an act of the legislature for those two reasons.

I also don't think it would change very much. It would just switch the prerogative from a corrupt government agency to an even more corrupt Congress which is arguably worse.
 
Last edited:
Carjosse said:
But the Congress and Senate has no way to enforce these rules without the creation of a government agency, hence the execute part of the executive branch. There is no point in creating regulations if there is nobody to enforce them. There is also the problem that the legislators are not experts on these topics. These agencies were created by an act of the legislature for those two reasons.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about enforcement. I'm talking about the making of regulations. All that these agencies should be doing at most is studies and recommendations to Congress/Senate. Enforcement is what LEO's are supposed to do. These agencies should not be making regulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom