• 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

Cardinal said:
If they sell me something in bad faith and they're regulated by the FCC, then I have grounds to sue them. Without those regulations they are no longer bound by them and any lawsuit I bring would be pointless.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You can sue anybody for anything so long as you have standing. If you have a contract with a ISP, you have standing and can sue them. Which by the way has been done to the ISP's before the FCC stepped in. Successfully most of time. The FCC actually protects the ISP if you want my opinion.
 
Crovax said:
Considering that the ISPs are run by the same cartels who have pretty much destroyed TV, I find that whole argument laughable.

The reason that water, power and now internet are so regulated is because of infrastructure, there is no literal room for competition
Click to expand...

Isn't the FCC the same govt agency that controls your TV programming?
 
PirateMk1 said:
Wrong. You can sue anybody for anything so long as you have standing. If you have a contract with a ISP, you have standing and can sue them. Which by the way has been done to the ISP's before the FCC stepped in. Successfully most of time. The FCC actually protects the ISP if you want my opinion.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. I will have no grounds to sue my isp if they throttle my connection or put up pay walls if that behavior is not banned by regulations. Your posts seem to assume that an open internet will automatically be in my service agreement, and there will be no reason for my isp provide me that if they don't have to.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
Net neutrality really isn't net neutrality though is it? As the system exists now, the favored search engines like Google can set their systems to favor searches that produce a certain result and suppress searches that would rebut the favored position. I get a very difference set of first choices of links from Google than I do from IE or AOL or DuckDuckGo and this suggests to me that Google does manipulate what comes up on the first links you see.
Click to expand...


No, that's something quite different than what "net neutrality" is about.
 
AlbqOwl said:
No, I know what it is. But the truth it, it goes far beyond manipulation of internet speeds as a means of extortion. I just don't see Trump supporting any kind of monopoly re the internet and I spelled out the reasons why. I mentioned the blocking that already exists on the internet that represents biased ideology or partisanship or maybe bribes (? who knows) and these bother me. I do believe Trump will favor rules/regs that promote healthy competition, and the internet provider who assures its subscribers that it does not engage in any shady business practices such as deliberate slowdown etc. to certain sites etc. will get a whole lot more business than those who do.

That's why I am maintaining a wait and see attitude on this. I don't think the 2014 law has produced all the results it was shooting for. It certainly didn't help with internet fees. And the lawsuit between Comcast and Netflix seems to have been settled amicably as Comcast now routinely offers movies that Netflix will provide--you just pay Comcast a monthly fee for that service and Comcast of course then pays Netflix. Netflix gets much more exposure to potential customers, the customer doesn't pay any more for the Netflix service, and both providers make money. Win win for all.
Click to expand...

Read the article linked in the OP. The FCC interim chairman will "take a weed whacker" to NN. And you will not get any help from Trump because he has specifically spoken out against net neutrality. You did not research the issue and your shock level will be greater than ours.
 
Zyphlin said:
The reality is that the ISP market is not a traditionally thought of "free market", and often functions as a monopoly or duopoly in many areas; specifically the type of thing government is meant to help deal with in our economic system that is not 100% full capitalism.



On the contrary, it will STIFLE innovation as it relates to the usage of the internet. If you're suggesting it will allow for innovation on the part of the ISPs, I'd suggest you take a look at the extremely slow progress of "innovation" as it relates to the cable. If you're trying to suggest it'll allow for innovation of competitors, I'd suggest you again look at the "innovation" regarding cable. It's taken DECADES to get any kind of legitimate competitor to cable, and most of those frankly are Amazingly SUBPAR. Oh, and guess what? Almost every alternative that even APPROACHES viability is dependent on what? Oh that's right, the internet. Congratulations, we create a situation that not only stifles innovation with the internet, but actually stifles innovation that was occurring with regards to visual home entertainment.
Click to expand...

How is ISP business a duopoly much less a monopoly? In Stevensville Mt. which is where I am moving to there are currently 5 ISP's not including the Telecoms or the Cellular networks. In Bakersfield CA were I am moving from there is Comcast and ATT and Unwired and a couple more. Stevensville Mt has 1800 people in it. Ravalli county has 40,000. Bakersfield CA 363,000 population, Kern County has 864,000. The entire state of Montana has a little over a million.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Excuse me when they sold you your internet connection they sold you it based on what? Speed, no? If they are throttling based on content, then they sold you a service potentially fraudulently, at the very least in bad faith. People have brought the internet providers to court over this plenty of time and have won almost all of them. That's why I still have a ATT unlimited cellular data account. They cant throttle the account. Because they have been sued on it already, and lost. When you sell something to someone there is a duty to provide whatever it is essentially you are selling. Otherwise it can be construed as fraud. So when a company sells internet connections based on their speed they can be held to provide that speed. And have already been. Don't need any regulations or laws to do it. Just need a lawyer. Believe me attorneys will get involved in massive class action lawsuits if they think they can make a buck. Why do you think Netflix Google and Amazon have been in on the fight? There is plenty of precedent laid down already that an ISP will have to tip toe very carefully if they go down the road you say they are.
Click to expand...

1. When you select a certain data rate, you are selecting the maximum possible speed for the connection. As it is, cable companies do not guarantee that you get any particular speed on any particular site. They cannot because a host of factors determines the precise upload/download rate between you and whatever specific site(s) you happen to be on at the moment. So, no, you cannot sue them as it is anyway. But, as long as Net Neutrality is around, the government can punish them if they throttle your connection to certain sites.

2. Typically, you're paying on a month to month basis on whatever terms the cable company sees fit to grant you. The exceptions are when you contract for, say, a one year discount bundled service deal. So you usually are not actually "contracted" at all, anyway. Without Net Neutrality, they could simply put into every new contract a provision stipulating that the ISP has the right to determine your upload/download speed on a site by site basis.

3. The companies can simply change their terms of service for all those (the majority) customers not under one of those time-limited discount deals.

4. What are your damages for Netflix streaming to fail because Comcast throttled Netflix users in an attempt to hurt Netflix? How much money are you going to spend on a lawsuit over that, and how much do you expect to win in a contract suit?
 
Last edited:
This kind of thing is what's so scary about living in this country. There are so many ignoramuses who have genuinely bought into the GOP's pitch that the only good regulation is a dead regulation.


Guess what folks: you've been duped into screwing yourselves. I'd laugh except I'm going to get screwed too, thanks to you. There are some wasteful regulations, but you know what, there are a whole lot of good regulations. Those good regulations are there to stop unscrupulous businesses from screwing you over.

You know why we don't see lots of poor ten year olds with mangled limbs these days? Well, let me tell you. It wasn't because manufacturers decided in the goodness of their golden job creator hearts to stop using child labor and to start implementing meaningful worker safety rules. It was because government forced them to, using regulation.
 
PirateMk1 said:
How is ISP business a duopoly much less a monopoly? In Stevensville Mt. which is where I am moving to there are currently 5 ISP's not including the Telecoms or the Cellular networks. In Bakersfield CA were I am moving from there is Comcast and ATT and Unwired and a couple more. Stevensville Mt has 1800 people in it. Ravalli county has 40,000. Bakersfield CA 363,000 population, Kern County has 864,000. The entire state of Montana has a little over a million.
Click to expand...

And where I live, the only cable connection is Comcast. Because they do not have to share their cable infrastructure with competitors, unlike a phone company would, no rival companies want to move in.
 
Mr Person said:
This kind of thing is what's so scary about living in this country. There are so many ignoramuses who have genuinely bought into the GOP's pitch that the only good regulation is a dead regulation.


Guess what folks: you've been duped into screwing yourselves. I'd laugh except I'm going to get screwed too, thanks to you. There are some wasteful regulations, but you know what, there are a whole lot of good regulations. Those good regulations are there to stop unscrupulous businesses from screwing you over.

You know why we don't see lots of poor ten year olds with mangled limbs these days? Well, let me tell you. It wasn't because manufacturers decided in the goodness of their golden job creator hearts to stop using child labor and to start implementing meaningful worker safety rules. It was because government forced them to, using regulation.
Click to expand...

I always thought that when you hear the word regulation, if you substitute in your mind the words 'consumer protections' or 'worker protections' its a lot more realistic.

So when you hear Trump saying he wants to remove two regulations for each one added, a better way to think of it is that Trump wants to remove two consumer or worker protections for each one added.
 
Cardinal said:
You're missing the point. I will have no grounds to sue my isp if they throttle my connection or put up pay walls if that behavior is not banned by regulations. Your posts seem to assume that an open internet will automatically be in my service agreement, and there will be no reason for my isp provide me that if they don't have to.
Click to expand...

No you are missing the point. Yes you can sue your ISP if they don't provide the service or underperform the service they say they are going to provide. It is up to YOU to hold them to what they say they are going to do. If they say they are going to provide 150Mbs service then you can hold them to that. Its been done all the time. It was done before the FCC got involved in the first place. The ISP's don't get carte blanche to say whatever they want to sell you something then not uphold the deal. It is however up to you to hold your ISP accountable. Believe me it can be done. Easily I might add.
 
Cardinal said:
Read the article linked in the OP. The FCC interim chairman will "take a weed whacker" to NN. And you will not get any help from Trump because he has specifically spoken out against net neutrality. You did not research the issue and your shock level will be greater than ours.
Click to expand...

I've been reading this stuff from various sources for weeks. And there seems to be no depths the 'never-Trumpers' will not sink to accuse him. One more time: those of us who voted Trump aren't necessarily wild about Trump, but we at least are able to take what he says figuratively, i.e. pointing to an objective or goal with the method of getting there effectively and efficiently subject to amendment in the process. The never-Trumpers take everything he says literally allowing absolutely no margin for any interpretation other than their own. He has good people advising him and when it comes to business, he knows what he is doing by the time he actually executes a plan.

I'll wait and see. I've been disappointed and frustrated and angered and personally skewered by various rules and regs and other acts of government so you don't need to worry about my shock level. Been there, done that, trashed the T-shirt.
 
Mr Person said:
This kind of thing is what's so scary about living in this country. There are so many ignoramuses who have genuinely bought into the GOP's pitch that the only good regulation is a dead regulation.


Guess what folks: you've been duped into screwing yourselves. I'd laugh except I'm going to get screwed too, thanks to you. There are some wasteful regulations, but you know what, there are a whole lot of good regulations. Those good regulations are there to stop unscrupulous businesses from screwing you over.

You know why we don't see lots of poor ten year olds with mangled limbs these days? Well, let me tell you. It wasn't because manufacturers decided in the goodness of their golden job creator hearts to stop using child labor and to start implementing meaningful worker safety rules. It was because government forced them to, using regulation.
Click to expand...

No, its because the companies playing fast and loose got their asses sued off and the litigation about killed them.
 
Mr Person said:
And where I live, the only cable connection is Comcast. Because they do not have to share their cable infrastructure with competitors, unlike a phone company would, no rival companies want to move in.
Click to expand...

Can a competitor put their own cable in? Or their own towers?
 
Mr Person said:
This kind of thing is what's so scary about living in this country. There are so many ignoramuses who have genuinely bought into the GOP's pitch that the only good regulation is a dead regulation.

Guess what folks: you've been duped into screwing yourselves. I'd laugh except I'm going to get screwed too, thanks to you. There are some wasteful regulations, but you know what, there are a whole lot of good regulations. Those good regulations are there to stop unscrupulous businesses from screwing you over.

You know why we don't see lots of poor ten year olds with mangled limbs these days? Well, let me tell you. It wasn't because manufacturers decided in the goodness of their golden job creator hearts to stop using child labor and to start implementing meaningful worker safety rules. It was because government forced them to, using regulation.
Click to expand...

PirateMk1 said:
No, its because the companies playing fast and loose got their asses sued off and the litigation about killed them.
Click to expand...

:shock:

So you're just going to straight up and lie about working conditions during the industrial revolution, which extended into the beginning of the 20th century? You're going to lie about how government regulation quashed child labor, required worker safety be respected?
 
PirateMk1 said:
Can a competitor put their own cable in? Or their own towers?
Click to expand...

No, generally a competitor cannot just put their own cable in. See Cardinal's earlier post about typical difficulties with the locality.

It's also incredibly expensive.
 
Mr Person said:
And where I live, the only cable connection is Comcast. Because they do not have to share their cable infrastructure with competitors, unlike a phone company would, no rival companies want to move in.
Click to expand...

In my area as well - at least for internet connectivity. I'm 18k feet from the closes CO, meaning DSL if it would even work, would be at 64k speeds. FIoS and other cable services cannot use Comcast's cable - not like telephone wires where the consumer can use any telecom provider for their local or long distance calls - or for that matter, cell towers which can be utilized by any telecom to provide service to their users. So I have one choice for internet connectivity which amounts to a monopoly.... DISH and other satellite services again are not comparable for data connectivity, though they would be for TV service.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I've been reading this stuff from various sources for weeks. And there seems to be no depths the 'never-Trumpers' will not sink to accuse him. One more time: those of us who voted Trump aren't necessarily wild about Trump, but we at least are able to take what he says figuratively, i.e. pointing to an objective or goal with the method of getting there effectively and efficiently subject to amendment in the process. The never-Trumpers take everything he says literally allowing absolutely no margin for any interpretation other than their own. He has good people advising him and when it comes to business, he knows what he is doing by the time he actually executes a plan.

I'll wait and see. I've been disappointed and frustrated and angered and personally skewered by various rules and regs and other acts of government so you don't need to worry about my shock level. Been there, done that, trashed the T-shirt.
Click to expand...

"Weeks" wasn't a sufficient amount of time for you to learn up on this issue. The rest of us have been following this very closely for years. Considering that you believe Google determining search results is related to Net Neutrality, it's safe to say you're going to be very surprised inside the next year when you receive a new service agreement from your isp.

And this isn't about Trump, except so far as to say that he will be the reason why your internet habits are about to drastically change. This isn't about "good" or "bad," it just is.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Can a competitor put their own cable in? Or their own towers?
Click to expand...

I already linked to an article that Google is facing in attempting to install google fiber.

Net Neutrality is coming to an end, and competition isn't going to save you from its effects because isps have fought too long and successfully to make sure that competition can't exist.
 
PirateMk1 said:
No you are missing the point. Yes you can sue your ISP if they don't provide the service or underperform the service they say they are going to provide. It is up to YOU to hold them to what they say they are going to do. If they say they are going to provide 150Mbs service then you can hold them to that. Its been done all the time. It was done before the FCC got involved in the first place. The ISP's don't get carte blanche to say whatever they want to sell you something then not uphold the deal. It is however up to you to hold your ISP accountable. Believe me it can be done. Easily I might add.
Click to expand...

[Sigh]

And if they provide a new service agreement that dispenses with NN...
 
AlbqOwl said:
I've been reading this stuff from various sources for weeks. And there seems to be no depths the 'never-Trumpers' will not sink to accuse him. One more time: those of us who voted Trump aren't necessarily wild about Trump, but we at least are able to take what he says figuratively, i.e. pointing to an objective or goal with the method of getting there effectively and efficiently subject to amendment in the process. The never-Trumpers take everything he says literally allowing absolutely no margin for any interpretation other than their own. He has good people advising him and when it comes to business, he knows what he is doing by the time he actually executes a plan.

I'll wait and see. I've been disappointed and frustrated and angered and personally skewered by various rules and regs and other acts of government so you don't need to worry about my shock level. Been there, done that, trashed the T-shirt.
Click to expand...


Oh God, not that again. That guy had more bankruptcies than most people have had jobs.

And as for being good for business: that's kind of the point in this discussion. Ending Net Neutrality will be great for monopolistic cable ISP companies. It will be horrible for everyone else.



Yet a significant portion of "everyone else" seems to be rooting to end net neutrality because somebody told them that all regulation is evil, and that magical lawyers will come to the rescue to use lawsuits to do what net neutrality was already doing....

.....even though no such lawsuit will be viable because, DUH, cable companies will be in a position to offer you whatever contractual terms they desire without net neutrality.

:doh
 
Cardinal said:
"Weeks" wasn't a sufficient amount of time for you to learn up on this issue. The rest of us have been following this very closely for years. Considering that you believe Google determining search results is related to Net Neutrality, it's safe to say you're going to be very surprised inside the next year when you receive a new service agreement from your isp.

And this isn't about Trump, except so far as to say that he will be the reason why your internet habits are about to drastically change. This isn't about "good" or "bad," it just is.
Click to expand...

I am locked into my service agreement with my internet provider well beyond next year. If they violate that agreement, I will have an easy out to drop them won't I. By 'weeks', I mean I have been reading that Trump will destroy net neutrality for weeks now. But then I have been reading that Trump will do every horrible thing it is possible for a President to do for weeks now. I was in on all the discussion of net neutrality when the FCC imposed the new rules in 2014. i know what it is. And I also know all the problems that are involved that aren't making the news so much these days.

This isn't about me. Why don't you argue your own case for your own thread instead of trying to villainize me or make me into the village idiot due for a huge disappointment?
 
PirateMk1 said:
No you are missing the point. Yes you can sue your ISP if they don't provide the service or underperform the service they say they are going to provide. It is up to YOU to hold them to what they say they are going to do. If they say they are going to provide 150Mbs service then you can hold them to that. Its been done all the time. It was done before the FCC got involved in the first place. The ISP's don't get carte blanche to say whatever they want to sell you something then not uphold the deal. It is however up to you to hold your ISP accountable. Believe me it can be done. Easily I might add.
Click to expand...

Either you don't have the slightest clue or you are straight-up lying.

No, you cannot sue your ISP if you aren't getting 150 mbps because your ISP didn't promise you 150 mbps around the clock. That's the highest rate you can get. As I already ****ing explained to you, your up/down speed varies with each site you visit, each game you log into multiplayer on, each specific thing you connect to using the internet.

What they cannot do is make it impossible for you to stream on Netflix by reducing the up/down speed for that one site. Except, without net neutrality, they'll be able to do that too.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I am locked into my service agreement with my internet provider well beyond next year. =
Click to expand...

Get that contract out. Read it in its entirety.


See whether that 150 mpbs is a maximum speed in optimal conditions as I allege, or whether they are actually promising you 150 mbps no matter what you connect to on the internet.




Tons of things affect your connection. The distances packets have to travel, congestion or high-usage levels for particular sites, whether or not a website limits the speed at which visitors may download information from it, etc.

And of course, locally, the type of cable modem you have, your computer, the software you're running, malware, the type of connection between modem and computer.



Without net neutrality, one factor will overshadow all those: the speed at which your cable provider chooses to allow you to connect to a given site.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I am locked into my service agreement with my internet provider well beyond next year. If they violate that agreement, I will have an easy out to drop them won't I. By 'weeks', I mean I have been reading that Trump will destroy net neutrality for weeks now. But then I have been reading that Trump will do every horrible thing it is possible for a President to do for weeks now. I was in on all the discussion of net neutrality when the FCC imposed the new rules in 2014. i know what it is. And I also know all the problems that are involved that aren't making the news so much these days.

This isn't about me. Why don't you argue your own case for your own thread instead of trying to villainize me or make me into the village idiot due for a huge disappointment?
Click to expand...

The regulations governing the internet will change before the terms governing your service agreement terminate. So whenever that service agreement does terminate, look to the items in the OP to see what you can expect. As another poster here said, I didn't pull those predictions out of a hat. Those are things the isp's have been fighting to do for a very, very long time. Whatever conditions you think will protect you from those changes won't exist, because the people who have been fighting to preserve net neutrality are about to be replaced with their opposites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom