• 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!

Approval of Internet traffic rules likely: analysts

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Contentious Internet traffic rules facing a vote next week are likely to be adopted without radically veering from a proposal unveiled earlier in the month, telecommunications policy analysts said on Wednesday.
Click to expand...

In the past year, I have seen posts from some of the Liberals in this forum railing against the attempt to block some kinds of traffic on the internet. Well, now is the time to put up or shut up. Are you willing to work with Republicans on this issue? I ask this because it is Republican members of the FCC who are against this law, while the Democrats are for it.

To the Liberals - I know how you don't like Republicans, but are you willing to put that dislike aside, and support something that needs to be supported? Or are you willing to settle for this, sometime in the future?

netneutrality2.jpg


Article is here.
 
Last edited:
Somehow I don't think it is a matter of life or death.

Even if the rules are adopted, lawmakers are likely to challenge the rules, as Republicans have been vocal that they oppose any FCC action geared at governing the Internet.
Click to expand...
 
What difference does the party of any one involved make? If you are for or against an issue, you are for or against it. I don't know alot about this topic, but I think the blocking of traffic is, at least at this time, wrong.
 
SirPwn4lot said:
I don't care what Republicans or Democrats do. My position on this is fairly simple: ISPs shouldn't be able to throttle, ration, filter, etc their internet service. I'll support any bill that supports that agenda.
Click to expand...

Just one point.. ISPs are allowed (and should) to throttle, ration, filter etc their service IF their quality of service for all is under threat. This means if one or a few persons sit on say 90% of the bandwidth all the time and making all others have a slow net, then an ISP has to step in. People must remember, that ISPs everywhere sell more bandwidth than they have.. when you buy say 20 mbit connection, then you dont get 20 mbit onto the main internet constantly, you get up to 20 mbit on the internet and 20mbit access on the ISPs own network. You share the over all ISPs "hole" onto the internet with everyone else. This is provided of course you have a normal consumer connection and not the more specialized dedicated (and more expensive) connections.
 
This is more about preferences in business allegiances than anything else. The lowest.
 
PeteEU said:
Just one point.. ISPs are allowed (and should) to throttle, ration, filter etc their service IF their quality of service for all is under threat. This means if one or a few persons sit on say 90% of the bandwidth all the time and making all others have a slow net, then an ISP has to step in. People must remember, that ISPs everywhere sell more bandwidth than they have.. when you buy say 20 mbit connection, then you dont get 20 mbit onto the main internet constantly, you get up to 20 mbit on the internet and 20mbit access on the ISPs own network. You share the over all ISPs "hole" onto the internet with everyone else. This is provided of course you have a normal consumer connection and not the more specialized dedicated (and more expensive) connections.
Click to expand...

Well yes these are domestic plans, you can't spend 50TB a week :D

Here in Australia we have plans that are based on data, you buy... a 50GB plan or a 100GB plan, which lasts for a month. If you go over that limit you're shaped to 56k. You'd think the free market would supply some of the overwhelming demand for unlimited usage plans, but it doesn't. I can only name one in my entire city, and they have a virtual monopoly so they charge insane prices (and only on 24mbit speeds). Trust me. It's not fun at all.

Internet infrastructure is extremely beneficial to business, Japan and South Korea both benefit enormously from their 150mbit+ general speeds. Internet speeds is another thing the US has fallen way behind in relative to the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:
SirPwn4lot said:
Well yes these are domestic plans, you can't spend 50TB a week :D
Click to expand...

Wanna bet!? :) Watch full HD content all day for a week.. and maybe you will get there!

Here in Australia we have plans that are based on data, you buy... a 50GB plan or a 100GB plan, which lasts for a month. If you go over that limit you're shaped to 56k.
Click to expand...

Yes those ISPs do exist in Europe but are very very few. The reason they put said limits on is because they dont have the "hole" out that is needed to supply unlimited downloads. Now saying that, 50GB is enough for most and 100GB should cover all but the big downloaders. Problem comes when you start getting video on demand in HD (or even normal), then those 100 GB poof very fast. Therefore internet based TV is the first causality of such plans. In the US, Comcast has kicked users off because of "overuse" of Youtube..

You'd think the free market would supply some of the overwhelming demand for unlimited usage plans, but it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Actually it does, IF that free market is protected by regulation that promotes competition. In Europe we have that. I live in Spain, which by European standards is a 3rd world country when it comes to internet and according to the OECD about the same as the US (on average speeds). I have access to easily 5+ different ISPs with the 3 big ones giving free telephone and internet TV for 40 euros a month. If I just want a 3mb line (the smallest one out there) then I pay around 15 to 20 euros. In Denmark I can get it even cheaper and much more bandwidth and all of them are pretty much unlimited downloads. Add to that at least 5 wireless providers, plus 5+ 3G providers in the area then I have access to 15+ ISP providers ranging from 1 Mbit to 10+ mbit.. and there are more come to think of it. I know there are at least 3 ISP companies (local) that focus on the expat market, and then a few more on top of that..so 20+ at least.

I can only name one in my entire city, and they have a virtual monopoly so they charge insane prices (and only on 24mbit speeds). Trust me. It's not fun at all.
Click to expand...

I know fully what you mean.. it was how it was in Europe (and is in some places still) 20 years ago.

Internet infrastructure is extremely beneficial to business, Japan and South Korea both benefit enormously from their 150mbit+ general speeds. Internet speeds is another thing the US has fallen way behind in relative to the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

It is because the telecommunications companies dont want to invest in infrastructure but instead pay out massive bonuses and dividend to their shareholders. And you can add Sweden to your list as well as Denmark. This is the main problem with situations like the American... zero competition to push companies to compete on quality and quantity... why boost your network if you have a geographical monopoly? The best way to fix such a situation is do what the Europeans did.. force the infrastructure open.. that anyone can rent in (at reasonable prices) on the backbone of the monopoly company and that the monopoly company has the legal right to expand and maintain the network for say 50 years as long as it gives access to other companies. Soon you will see new companies entering the market.. like it or not, the copper/fiberoptic cables in the ground is a huge entrance barrier in the telecommunications market.
 
PeteEU said:
Wanna bet!? :) Watch full HD content all day for a week.. and maybe you will get there!



Yes those ISPs do exist in Europe but are very very few. The reason they put said limits on is because they dont have the "hole" out that is needed to supply unlimited downloads. Now saying that, 50GB is enough for most and 100GB should cover all but the big downloaders. Problem comes when you start getting video on demand in HD (or even normal), then those 100 GB poof very fast. Therefore internet based TV is the first causality of such plans. In the US, Comcast has kicked users off because of "overuse" of Youtube..



Actually it does, IF that free market is protected by regulation that promotes competition. In Europe we have that. I live in Spain, which by European standards is a 3rd world country when it comes to internet and according to the OECD about the same as the US (on average speeds). I have access to easily 5+ different ISPs with the 3 big ones giving free telephone and internet TV for 40 euros a month. If I just want a 3mb line (the smallest one out there) then I pay around 15 to 20 euros. In Denmark I can get it even cheaper and much more bandwidth and all of them are pretty much unlimited downloads. Add to that at least 5 wireless providers, plus 5+ 3G providers in the area then I have access to 15+ ISP providers ranging from 1 Mbit to 10+ mbit.. and there are more come to think of it. I know there are at least 3 ISP companies (local) that focus on the expat market, and then a few more on top of that..so 20+ at least.



I know fully what you mean.. it was how it was in Europe (and is in some places still) 20 years ago.



It is because the telecommunications companies dont want to invest in infrastructure but instead pay out massive bonuses and dividend to their shareholders. And you can add Sweden to your list as well as Denmark. This is the main problem with situations like the American... zero competition to push companies to compete on quality and quantity... why boost your network if you have a geographical monopoly? The best way to fix such a situation is do what the Europeans did.. force the infrastructure open.. that anyone can rent in (at reasonable prices) on the backbone of the monopoly company and that the monopoly company has the legal right to expand and maintain the network for say 50 years as long as it gives access to other companies. Soon you will see new companies entering the market.. like it or not, the copper/fiberoptic cables in the ground is a huge entrance barrier in the telecommunications market.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Although by a domestic plan I meant in the contract there's often a clause that says you must use it personally, and some even give a vague definition of "reasonable". I didn't mean you 'can't' get to 50TB. I use a lot of HD video and I get to about 500GB a month, in combination with a LOT of downloads. I don't think I could get to 20 TB, let alone 50TB, even if I ran my connection 24/7.
 
Other than simple things like online banking and whatnot, I could EASILY shut off the internet and live just fine without it. Information is easily obtained in a number of ways these days.

And frankly, I get tired of being so "connected" all the time. On the weekends, I usually put the phone away and turn off the computers. Somehow they survived during the days of the Pony Express, and so can I.
 
I warned this was coming weeks ago and to those who have their heads placed firmly up their back side, get this straight. This will have a direct and profound effect on websites like this one.

Those who think the rules are harsh now haven't seen anything yet.

The next thing Obama and his Marxist/Socialist radical cabal are going after is Radio and in a direct attack on free speech.

Obama in on schedule to keep up with his pal Hugo Chavez who wants total dictatorial power, but only for a year.

Right, I trust him. Do you "Firsters?"

Newsvine - Chavez Seeks Expanded Power in Charter
CARACAS — Hugo Chavez could have a shot at becoming president for life if voters approve a sweeping overhaul of the constitution Sunday that would give him unchecked power to reshape Venezuela's government, economy and society.

Some polls show Chavez faces considerable resistance in the referendum. His primary impediment seems to be voters like Vanessa Meneses, a 27-year-old single mother who has backed Chavez in past elections but now fears he could become another Fidel Castro.
Click to expand...
 
John McCain's "Internet Freedom Act" Seeks to Block FCC's Net Neutrality Rules
A man who readily admits to being computer illiterate sponsoring this bill... hmmm..

Don't pretend it's all Democrats doing this. It's corporate lobbyists pushing this, and they don't care much for party lines.

I'm not suggesting that any physical retaliation should occur if the FCC does end net neutrality. Not saying that at all.
 
Councilman said:
I warned this was coming weeks ago and to those who have their heads placed firmly up their back side, get this straight. This will have a direct and profound effect on websites like this one.

Those who think the rules are harsh now haven't seen anything yet.

The next thing Obama and his Marxist/Socialist radical cabal are going after is Radio and in a direct attack on free speech.

Obama in on schedule to keep up with his pal Hugo Chavez who wants total dictatorial power, but only for a year.

Right, I trust him. Do you "Firsters?"
Click to expand...

Hugo Chavez liked Obama to begin with, then he saw the "other side" of Obama, that's on display now. Chavez is extremely anti-imperialist. Funnily enough, he has a much higher approval rating in his own country than Obama has in his :p

I honestly don't get how you can make this out to be some big communist takeover of the internet like in China. They're (and I don't even know why you're including Obama in this, he has little to do with it :S) not touching the content of the internet itself, just making sure that specific sites can't be blocked/throttled to coincide with ISP interests. Now, you might not like this, but it's certainly nothing like China, where they block most searches, monitor your browsing 24/7, delete content, don't let you upload much, etc.

Conservatives have to begin to realize that private tyrannies aren't that distinguished from public tyrannies.
 
Councilman said:
I warned this was coming weeks ago and to those who have their heads placed firmly up their back side, get this straight. This will have a direct and profound effect on websites like this one.

Those who think the rules are harsh now haven't seen anything yet.

The next thing Obama and his Marxist/Socialist radical cabal are going after is Radio and in a direct attack on free speech.

Obama in on schedule to keep up with his pal Hugo Chavez who wants total dictatorial power, but only for a year.

Right, I trust him. Do you "Firsters?"
Click to expand...

How on earth can it be Obama's fault when it is the companies themselves, known right wing backers, that are pushing for the legislation so they can screw over the American people yet again? This "net neutrality" thing has been going on for longer than Obama was been in office and as far as I can see the people talking for this, are the Republicans..
 
ISPs can have their rules, as long as they are based on the rule of law. There will always be business opportunities for ISPs to provide what the users want, regardless of the political biases of the users... as long as the government doesn't take over and censor the content. IMO, the attempt to legislate these internet traffic rules is a first step towards excessive government control and censorship!
 
It's not Obama's fault that so many government jackasses continue to look for another way to extend their power over the people. However, Obama's track record against personal freedom (i.e. Obamacare, corporate takeovers, stimulus, etc.) would lead a sane one to think that Obama supports this new affront to our freedom.
 
Any bill that tells providers what they can and cannot do in regards to their services is bull****. I would have no problem paying for a fast lane if Time Warner went through that route. If people want to keep competition going in regards to the net, how about attacking the quasi-monopolies that the cable companies and Land line companies have.


SirPwn4lot said:
Conservatives have to begin to realize that private tyrannies aren't that distinguished from public tyrannies.
Click to expand...

Expect I can leave a private tyranny, public tyrannies not so much.
 
PeteEU said:
This could kill the internet in my opinion. It would make the internet another corporation controlled system where the user is forced to view only what the corporation allows.
Click to expand...
You mean what the government allows? Yes, I fear that too.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
You mean what the government allows? Yes, I fear that too.
Click to expand...

Again, it is not the government that is pushing this, but private business. Now saying that, the government is just in the pockets of said industry, but ultimately it is the private owned big telecommunications companies that are pushing for this to keep their geographical monopolies in place. So blaming government more than private business is dishonest to say the least.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
You mean what the government allows? Yes, I fear that too.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand at all what's happening here. The government isn't what would be taking control of things, it would be allowing private telcoms to control things instead of keeping all traffic "neutral."
 
ptif219 said:
Now the UN wants in on it


UN mulls internet regulation options - Security - Technology - News - iTnews.com.au

The United Nations is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet.

Establishment of such a group has the backing of several countries, spearheaded by Brazil.
Click to expand...

Of course it has. The internet is the thron in most countries side because they have no control over it. Making this a "UN" issue is lame btw, the UN is just the conduit being used by the countries behind the idea, because most countries are members of the UN. It could just as well have been in the WTO or other organisation. And dont think for a second this is a "left wing" issue.. this tighter control is being spearheaded by very conservative people and countries with various reasons.. some political, some economical, some security related or all of the 3. I would wager the US companies would push for an Internet police to stop all the piracy... and so on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom