• 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!

FCC’s Ajit Pai says net neutrality’s “days are numbered” under Trump

CMPancake said:
So I take it you believe not all information should be treated equally and fairly?
Click to expand...

Is that what you think? Sounds like nothing but debate ploys. OMG, you don't care!!! Next you'll tell me I hate children and puppies.
 
American said:
Is that what you think? Sounds like nothing but debate ploys. OMG, you don't care!!! Next you'll tell me I hate children and puppies.
Click to expand...

Nice deflection there, champ.
 
Helix said:
that sucks. sites like ours would be slow laned. wouldn't surprise me, though.
Click to expand...

They could charge a LOT of money for unlimited internet access. They could offer services that provide zero lanes to low-budget sites.

People keep claiming that consumer choice will save us. I don't think that they have a thorough understanding of this market. The barriers to entry are unique and considerable, partially thanks to the considerable influence of big providers. It's pretty risky for us to gamble on competition to secure what is worth securing: freedom of information.
 
Absentglare said:
They could charge a LOT of money for unlimited internet access. They could offer services that provide zero lanes to low-budget sites.

People keep claiming that consumer choice will save us. I don't think that they have a thorough understanding of this market. The barriers to entry are unique and considerable, partially thanks to the considerable influence of big providers. It's pretty risky for us to gamble on competition to secure what is worth securing: freedom of information.
Click to expand...

They don't really understand much of....well, anything really. Not the history or meaning of net neutrality, not the physical barriers that allow carriers to monopolize cables and poles, not the difficulties Google has been facing in laying down fiber optic cables, and not the phenomenon of isps successfully lobbying state legislatures to prevent local municipalities from setting up their own isps. They also don't understand how their own "competition" argument is circumvented by their own praise of competition being banned by governments at the state level.

But absolutely none of that prevents them from holding a steadfast position on the topic.

"This is your brain on culture war..."
 
CMPancake said:
The internet netrual when ISPs agreed it was a generally ****ty thing to do. But once ISPs wanted to compete in services like video streamings they started slamming and extorting companies like Netflix. Thus why the FCC got involved to protect companies from being literally smothered by ISPs.
Click to expand...

No, again. Netflix's issues were with access to the core providers, not the ISP. There is absolutely nothing wrong with expecting someone who is using up most of the bandwidth to pay their fair share for access. The courts agreed, and Netflix is now paying their fair share. Being fair is hardly "slamming and extorting".

Anyway, the FCC did not get involved because of what was happening. They got involved because of what proponents imagined might happen or could happen. The Netflix situation is a perfect example of an imaginary problem being fixed. Netflix had to pay extra for fair use of bandwidth before the FCC NN rules, and they still have to pay the same fair use fees after the new FCC NN rules took effect.

The notion that the FCC NN rules give everyone unfettered equal access to the Internet only comes from those who read op-eds instead of the actual rules.
 
jonny5 said:
Look at you with the not so subtle attacks on my intelligence. Perhaps you are simply not very good at getting your point across. Maybe you should spend more time making and argument instead of attacking my character.
Click to expand...
I have been attacking your grasp of economic fundamentals, not your native intelligence.



jonny5 said:
The law of supply: higher price - higher supply.
Click to expand...
There you go again.



jonny5 said:
Obviously the fact that hundreds of millions of people are willing to pay the price for an ISP shows that the price is right.
Click to expand...
Computers are now so widely considered essential that 100 million people would probably be willing to pay double what they are paying now. They may soon be paying double, with no increase in product quality.

Also, they would pay less if there were more ISP competitors, and there would be even more ISP customer accounts.
 
natsb said:
No, again. Netflix's issues were with access to the core providers, not the ISP.
Click to expand...

Which were caused by the ISPs. Comcast users experienced a massive slowdown or flatout couldn't connect to a service they paid for because their provider wanted more money from Netflix.

Think about that for a second, your ISP decided you, the customer who pays for an internet service were denied from using that service they way you legally wanted too.

natsb said:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with expecting someone who is using up most of the bandwidth to pay their fair share for access.
Click to expand...
Except Netflix was paying their fair share, do you honestly think Netflix can't afford to pay their dues? Comcast quite literally slowed down their net to a bear halt for more money. Once Netflix paid the new amount, their speed was brought back to same bandwidth y were paying for before.

Imagine you're Netflix, and arbitrarily your internet speed faced massive slowdowns while Amazon Prime experienced none after recently merging with Time Warner cable. Would you think that is fair business or would you think your company is being extorted unfairly, or say... not on neutral footing on the net?

natsb said:
The courts agreed,
Click to expand...

Total bull****, the courts saw something unprecidented. It so unprecidented the courts ruled internet to be a utlity.

natsb said:
and Netflix is now paying their fair share.
Click to expand...

They were ALWAYS paying their fair share. Netflix shouldn't be penalized for being successful. What do you have against business?

natsb said:
Being fair is hardly "slamming and extorting".
Click to expand...

You have no real understanding of what's actually happening, do you?

natsb said:
Anyway, the FCC did not get involved because of what was happening. They got involved because of what proponents imagined might happen or could happen.
Click to expand...

The FCC got involved because suddenly the rules were changed and ISP believed they can unlevel the playing field for their benefit over users and businesses alike.

natsb said:
The Netflix situation is a perfect example of an imaginary problem being fixed. Netflix had to pay extra for fair use of bandwidth before the FCC NN rules, and they still have to pay the same fair use fees after the new FCC NN rules took effect.

The notion that the FCC NN rules give everyone unfettered equal access to the Internet only comes from those who read op-eds instead of the actual rules.
Click to expand...

Tell me, what do you have to gain from being in support of ISP over business and users like yourself?
 
Absentglare said:
They could charge a LOT of money for unlimited internet access. They could offer services that provide zero lanes to low-budget sites.

People keep claiming that consumer choice will save us. I don't think that they have a thorough understanding of this market. The barriers to entry are unique and considerable, partially thanks to the considerable influence of big providers. It's pretty risky for us to gamble on competition to secure what is worth securing: freedom of information.
Click to expand...

Freedom of information? A new addition to the bill of rights?
 
Tell me, what do you have to gain from being in support of ISP over business and users like yourself?
Click to expand...

Perhaps the desire to keep government out of one more aspect of our lives? He probably believes the competitive market is always a better choice than government management. So do I.
 
CMPancake said:
Which were caused by the ISPs. Comcast users experienced a massive slowdown or flatout couldn't connect to a service they paid for because their provider wanted more money from Netflix.

Think about that for a second, your ISP decided you, the customer who pays for an internet service were denied from using that service they way you legally wanted too.

Except Netflix was paying their fair share, do you honestly think Netflix can't afford to pay their dues? Comcast quite literally slowed down their net to a bear halt for more money. Once Netflix paid the new amount, their speed was brought back to same bandwidth y were paying for before.
Click to expand...

No, Netflix was not paying their fair share. Yes, they could afford too. Thus the law suit that they lost. You don't understand what happened do you? Netflix resumed faster speeds after they put their own servers on the core so they wouldn't have to go through Comcast's core routers.

Imagine you're Netflix, and arbitrarily your internet speed faced massive slowdowns while Amazon Prime experienced none after recently merging with Time Warner cable. Would you think that is fair business or would you think your company is being extorted unfairly, or say... not on neutral footing on the net?
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I was talking about. "Imagine what if" was the bases for the FCC NN rules. They were not put in place to stop anything that was actually going on.

I don't think you understand how the FCC rules work. If someone like Netflix uses up most of the bandwidth, they have to pay most of the bill.

Total bull****, the courts saw something unprecidented. It so unprecidented the courts ruled internet to be a utlity.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what this has to do with our discussion. ????

They were ALWAYS paying their fair share. Netflix shouldn't be penalized for being successful. What do you have against business?
Click to expand...

<snicker> A liberal concerned about success being penalized. </snicker>

Again, no, they were not paying their fair share. They were therefore subject to normal network management procedures and throttled. When they did pay their fair share and moved their servers, the throttle was lifted. None of this had anything to do with the NN rules.

You have no real understanding of what's actually happening, do you?
Click to expand...

Why, yes, I do. I am more than willing to compare resumes if you want to play the "who has a bigger one" game.

The FCC got involved because suddenly the rules were changed and ISP believed they can unlevel the playing field for their benefit over users and businesses alike.
Click to expand...

Again, no... The Internet providers were completely happy with their rules. There was no sudden change. The only change was introduced by the Government when they wanted to take over.

Again... The level playing field is a myth. Anyone, business or private, that uses more bandwidth, pays for more bandwidth. If they don't pay more, they get throttled. That was the story before the NN rules, that is still the story after the NN rules

Tell me, what do you have to gain from being in support of ISP over business and users like yourself?
Click to expand...

Easy, fair use of the Internet. FYI: An ISP is a business. They must be allowed to earn a living too. You are into imagining things on the network, try to imagine an Internet with no ISP's.

Go ahead, take a guess at what it would cost you are me to connect directly to the core.
 
USViking said:
I have been attacking your grasp of economic fundamentals, not your native intelligence.




There you go again.




Computers are now so widely considered essential that 100 million people would probably be willing to pay double what they are paying now. They may soon be paying double, with no increase in product quality.

Also, they would pay less if there were more ISP competitors, and there would be even more ISP customer accounts.
Click to expand...

"It is not the thing that exists in your crudely mistaken imagination."

"it would be nice if an economically sophisticated person would show up here"

Go read the forum rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom