• 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!

Starting Today, Your Internet Company Can Charge You More For Netflix And Facebook

JacksinPA

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
https://www.buzzfeed.com/daveyalba/net-neutrality-ends-now?utm_term=.vnejgjA7B1#.jkzxmxqz46

Today, June 11, the repeal of net neutrality rules goes into effect.

Today, June 11, the repeal of net neutrality rules goes into effect. Consumer advocacy groups, lawyers, technology companies, and citizen activists have long decried this move — which was decided in a vote by the Federal Communications Commission in December — as a fatal blow to an open and competitive internet.

Ever since they’ve been in place, net neutrality rules have prohibited internet service providers from slowing down websites or charging premiums for “fast lanes” for specific services or higher-quality streaming.

Now that the rules have been repealed, starting today it becomes possible for your internet company — Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and others — to charge you more to, say, get high-quality Netflix streaming or access Facebook.
=====================================
Thanks, Republicans. I'll remember this when I vote in 2018 & 2020. I never miss a vote.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/daveyalba/net-neutrality-ends-now?utm_term=.vnejgjA7B1#.jkzxmxqz46

Today, June 11, the repeal of net neutrality rules goes into effect.

Today, June 11, the repeal of net neutrality rules goes into effect. Consumer advocacy groups, lawyers, technology companies, and citizen activists have long decried this move — which was decided in a vote by the Federal Communications Commission in December — as a fatal blow to an open and competitive internet.

Ever since they’ve been in place, net neutrality rules have prohibited internet service providers from slowing down websites or charging premiums for “fast lanes” for specific services or higher-quality streaming.

Now that the rules have been repealed, starting today it becomes possible for your internet company — Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and others — to charge you more to, say, get high-quality Netflix streaming or access Facebook.
=====================================
Thanks, Republicans. I'll remember this when I vote in 2018 & 2020. I never miss a vote.
Click to expand...

You were otherwise going to vote Republican?
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/daveyalba/net-neutrality-ends-now?utm_term=.vnejgjA7B1#.jkzxmxqz46

Today, June 11, the repeal of net neutrality rules goes into effect.

Today, June 11, the repeal of net neutrality rules goes into effect. Consumer advocacy groups, lawyers, technology companies, and citizen activists have long decried this move — which was decided in a vote by the Federal Communications Commission in December — as a fatal blow to an open and competitive internet.

Ever since they’ve been in place, net neutrality rules have prohibited internet service providers from slowing down websites or charging premiums for “fast lanes” for specific services or higher-quality streaming.

Now that the rules have been repealed, starting today it becomes possible for your internet company — Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and others — to charge you more to, say, get high-quality Netflix streaming or access Facebook.
=====================================
Thanks, Republicans. I'll remember this when I vote in 2018 & 2020. I never miss a vote.
Click to expand...

This wasn't a problem before the regulation, and shouldn't be a problem now.

if you are concerned, lobby your congressman. Congress considered legislation regarding this, and chose not to pass it.
 
dcsports said:
This wasn't a problem before the regulation, and shouldn't be a problem now.

if you are concerned, lobby your congressman. Congress considered legislation regarding this, and chose not to pass it.
Click to expand...

Fitzgerald the carpetbagger? You have to be kidding. I hope the FBI will take him back after he loses.
 
JacksinPA said:
Fitzgerald the carpetbagger? You have to be kidding. I hope the FBI will take him back after he loses.
Click to expand...

I have no idea who your congressman is, but your friends and neighbors elected him. You could also lobby your senators.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/daveyalba/net-neutrality-ends-now?utm_term=.vnejgjA7B1#.jkzxmxqz46

Today, June 11, the repeal of net neutrality rules goes into effect.

Today, June 11, the repeal of net neutrality rules goes into effect. Consumer advocacy groups, lawyers, technology companies, and citizen activists have long decried this move — which was decided in a vote by the Federal Communications Commission in December — as a fatal blow to an open and competitive internet.

Ever since they’ve been in place, net neutrality rules have prohibited internet service providers from slowing down websites or charging premiums for “fast lanes” for specific services or higher-quality streaming.

Now that the rules have been repealed, starting today it becomes possible for your internet company — Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and others — to charge you more to, say, get high-quality Netflix streaming or access Facebook.
=====================================
Thanks, Republicans. I'll remember this when I vote in 2018 & 2020. I never miss a vote.
Click to expand...

They can also charge me less. And they could do that before net neutrality too. And I can choose not to pay them. Nothing has changed.

Thanks, Republicans. I'll remember this when I vote in 2018 & 2020. I never miss a vote, and I just canceled out yours.
 
dcsports said:
This wasn't a problem before the regulation, and shouldn't be a problem now.

if you are concerned, lobby your congressman. Congress considered legislation regarding this, and chose not to pass it.
Click to expand...


1. Actually, there were some instances. The regulation was a response to the possibility of an increase of such instances.

2. The potential for further instances isn't enough. And if what you were saying is true - it isnn't true, but if - then if it wasn't a "problem", nobody would have been burdened by the regulation aimed at it, so there was no reason to get rid of the regulation.

3. Congress created the FTC, which is empowered to regulate this sort of thing. Your reference to "legislation" is a red herring. (Nevermind that the interests that wanted to do away with the regulation dominate both congress and the FTC, so....double red herring).




Unlike the dial-up era, the ISP business is generally a monopoly or duopoly, except in very few areas. It is beyond stupid to advocate for your "right" to get screwed by monopoly powers. Given their market control, they could do exactly the sort of thing the OP mentions and the "free market" wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it. Because cable lines do not have to be shared, unlike telephone lines, the barriers to entry are cost-prohibitive.

Of course, the more likely scenario is that ISPs team up with large corporations like Facebook or Amazon to squeeze out competitors via slowdowns.
 
The real risk is that it can lead to firewalling of speech like in China and Australia. You give an inch and they'll take a mile. That's how our freedoms get curtailed, and once they're gone they're incredibly difficult to get back. It's really hard to undo laws. It's much easier to prevent them in the first place.

With rules like this, it starts as one thing innocently enough and then becomes another before long.

What happens if the President of Comcast doesn't like the opinions of a certain website? Will we suddenly have a higher fee to access that site?

This is bad. And just why was one man given all the power to decide this?
 
Northern Light said:
The real risk is that it can lead to firewalling of speech like in China and Australia. You give an inch and they'll take a mile. That's how our freedoms get curtailed, and once they're gone they're incredibly difficult to get back. It's really hard to undo laws. It's much easier to prevent them in the first place.

With rules like this, it starts as one thing innocently enough and then becomes another before long.

What happens if the President of Comcast doesn't like the opinions of a certain website? Will we suddenly have a higher fee to access that site?

This is bad. And just why was one man given all the power to decide this?
Click to expand...

One man wasn't. But as for the regulatory state, it's because Congress finds it politically easier to pass off its job than to actually legislate.
 
Mr Person said:
1. Actually, there were some instances. The regulation was a response to the possibility of an increase of such instances.

2. The potential for further instances isn't enough. And if what you were saying is true - it isnn't true, but if - then if it wasn't a "problem", nobody would have been burdened by the regulation aimed at it, so there was no reason to get rid of the regulation.

3. Congress created the FTC, which is empowered to regulate this sort of thing. Your reference to "legislation" is a red herring. (Nevermind that the interests that wanted to do away with the regulation dominate both congress and the FTC, so....double red herring).




Unlike the dial-up era, the ISP business is generally a monopoly or duopoly, except in very few areas. It is beyond stupid to advocate for your "right" to get screwed by monopoly powers. Given their market control, they could do exactly the sort of thing the OP mentions and the "free market" wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it. Because cable lines do not have to be shared, unlike telephone lines, the barriers to entry are cost-prohibitive.

Of course, the more likely scenario is that ISPs team up with large corporations like Facebook or Amazon to squeeze out competitors via slowdowns.
Click to expand...

There were a few issues/complaints -- not enough to justify the additional regulation.

The legislature considered net neutrality legislation, and opted not to implement it.
 
dcsports said:
There were a few issues/complaints -- not enough to justify the additional regulation..
Click to expand...

Says person repeating "regulations are bad mmmkay" mantra, without further elaboration. Yeah, ok, whatever.



dcsports said:
The legislature considered net neutrality legislation, and opted not to implement it.
Click to expand...

That red herring was already addressed.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/daveyalba/net-neutrality-ends-now?utm_term=.vnejgjA7B1#.jkzxmxqz46

Today, June 11, the repeal of net neutrality rules goes into effect.

Today, June 11, the repeal of net neutrality rules goes into effect. Consumer advocacy groups, lawyers, technology companies, and citizen activists have long decried this move — which was decided in a vote by the Federal Communications Commission in December — as a fatal blow to an open and competitive internet.

Ever since they’ve been in place, net neutrality rules have prohibited internet service providers from slowing down websites or charging premiums for “fast lanes” for specific services or higher-quality streaming.

Now that the rules have been repealed, starting today it becomes possible for your internet company — Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and others — to charge you more to, say, get high-quality Netflix streaming or access Facebook.
=====================================
Thanks, Republicans. I'll remember this when I vote in 2018 & 2020. I never miss a vote.
Click to expand...

Doesn't bother me. I don't do Netflix, I do very little with FB...heck, I watch very few YouTube videos.

Maybe others should save their money like I do.
 
Mr Person said:
Says person repeating "regulations are bad mmmkay" mantra, without further elaboration. Yeah, ok, whatever.


That red herring was already addressed.
Click to expand...

Ummm... . ok. Unnecessary or burdensome regulations are unnecessary. Yes.

Calling something a red herring doesn't make it one. It was addressed in the legislature -- democrats pushed hard for it. Congress elected not to act.
 
Mr Person said:
...3. Congress created the FTC, which is empowered to regulate this sort of thing. Your reference to "legislation" is a red herring. (Nevermind that the interests that wanted to do away with the regulation dominate both congress and the FTC, so....double red herring)....
Click to expand...

FYI -- these were FCC regulations, not FTC. There were serious questions as to whether they were empowered to enact this regulation.
 
dcsports said:
Ummm... . ok. Unnecessary or burdensome regulations are unnecessary. Yes.

Calling something a red herring doesn't make it one. It was addressed in the legislature -- democrats pushed hard for it. Congress elected not to act.
Click to expand...


Well, if you're just going to repeat yourself at me, ciao.

:2wave:



If you care to actually debate things, you can stop announcing that you are correct because you said you were correct and actually address my post, which you quoted in full in post #11 but didn't respond to on point.




dcsports said:
FYI -- these were FCC regulations, not FTC.
Click to expand...

FFS. Ok, sorry I bothered to engage.

Way to focus on form over substance.
 
Mr Person said:
Well, if you're just going to repeat yourself at me, ciao.

:2wave:



If you care to actually debate things, you can stop announcing that you are correct because you said you were correct and actually address my post, which you quoted in full in post #11 but didn't respond to on point.






FFS. Ok, sorry I bothered to engage.

Way to focus on form over substance.
Click to expand...

Repeating myself? lol... OK. Obviously, you don't want to discuss. Take care.
 
dcsports said:
This wasn't a problem before the regulation, and shouldn't be a problem now.

if you are concerned, lobby your congressman. Congress considered legislation regarding this, and chose not to pass it.
Click to expand...
It was also not technically possible before... it is now.

Considering the cartel there is between US ISP'S and the real profit possibilities....then it is coming.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 
PeteEU said:
It was also not technically possible before... it is now.

Considering the cartel there is between US ISP'S and the real profit possibilities....then it is coming.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Then it can easily be addressed when it becomes an issue. No need to preemptively create a law.

It's worth noting that often there are cases where the threat of legislation can be more effective than an actual law. Providers are likely to be very careful to not create an issue.
 
Fortunately my ISP's position on this is that consumers should have unfettered access to content on the internet. They don't block or throttle consumer access to lawful internet content. They don't resell consumers’ data to third parties. And they don't engage in unlawful or anticompetitive discrimination against websites, streaming video services, and voice applications that may compete with traditional services that they offer and don't offer pay-for-priority services. Hopefully their stance on NN remains.
 
Last edited:
dcsports said:
Then it can easily be addressed when it becomes an issue. No need to preemptively create a law..
Click to expand...

It was already explained to you that the law was created in response to things that in fact happened and the likelihood/possibility of further such things happening. All you said was that those were a "few issues/complaints", which your Lordship did not deem sufficient to warrant a rule.

That is meaningless.




dcsports said:
It's worth noting that often there are cases where the threat of legislation can be more effective than an actual law. Providers are likely to be very careful to not create an issue.
Click to expand...

I take it you do not understand how this usually works. Congress enacts an enabling statute creating an administrative agency. The agency, with that guidance, then promulgates specific rules to address the issue. Congress does not promulgate the specific rules because congress has no expertise. The agency, however, employs the people with the expertise.

It's not a perfect system, but it's far better than congress trying to legislate specific rules on subjects it knows little about. I suggest reading up on the Administrative Procedure Act and executive agencies in general.




Also, you never responded with any specific argument to this:

dcsports said:
This wasn't a problem before the regulation, and shouldn't be a problem now.

if you are concerned, lobby your congressman. Congress considered legislation regarding this, and chose not to pass it.
Click to expand...

Mr Person said:
1. Actually, there were some instances. The regulation was a response to the possibility of an increase of such instances.

2. The potential for further instances isn't enough. And if what you were saying is true - it isnn't true, but if - then if it wasn't a "problem", nobody would have been burdened by the regulation aimed at it, so there was no reason to get rid of the regulation.

3. Congress created the FTC, which is empowered to regulate this sort of thing. Your reference to "legislation" is a red herring. (Nevermind that the interests that wanted to do away with the regulation dominate both congress and the FTC, so....double red herring).




Unlike the dial-up era, the ISP business is generally a monopoly or duopoly, except in very few areas. It is beyond stupid to advocate for your "right" to get screwed by monopoly powers. Given their market control, they could do exactly the sort of thing the OP mentions and the "free market" wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it. Because cable lines do not have to be shared, unlike telephone lines, the barriers to entry are cost-prohibitive.

Of course, the more likely scenario is that ISPs team up with large corporations like Facebook or Amazon to squeeze out competitors via slowdowns.
Click to expand...
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/daveyalba/net-neutrality-ends-now?utm_term=.vnejgjA7B1#.jkzxmxqz46

Today, June 11, the repeal of net neutrality rules goes into effect.

Today, June 11, the repeal of net neutrality rules goes into effect. Consumer advocacy groups, lawyers, technology companies, and citizen activists have long decried this move — which was decided in a vote by the Federal Communications Commission in December — as a fatal blow to an open and competitive internet.

Ever since they’ve been in place, net neutrality rules have prohibited internet service providers from slowing down websites or charging premiums for “fast lanes” for specific services or higher-quality streaming.

Now that the rules have been repealed, starting today it becomes possible for your internet company — Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and others — to charge you more to, say, get high-quality Netflix streaming or access Facebook.
=====================================
Thanks, Republicans. I'll remember this when I vote in 2018 & 2020. I never miss a vote.
Click to expand...

I don't think the repeal of Net Neutrality will have any noticeable effect. It's not as if, starting in 2015, all these mom and pop Facebook / Netflix clones popped up because they weren't being charged a bandwidth fee by ISP's. And after today, Facebook's 'many competitors' will be priced out of the market.

In addition, the web didn't become less trashy under Neutrality.

The best thing we as individuals can do, rather than cheer on huge companies or powerful politicians in favor of Net Neutrality, is to reduce our consumption of Internet media. Or if we do consume it, recognize it for the trash that it is.
 
Mr Person said:
It was already explained to you that the law was created in response to things that in fact happened and the likelihood/possibility of further such things happening. All you said was that those were a "few issues/complaints", which your Lordship did not deem sufficient to warrant a rule.
Click to expand...

You didn't 'explain'. No law was created, and that is incorrect with respect to the regulation. It was created out of fear of what 'might' happen when efforts to pass a law failed.

Mr Person said:
I take it you do not understand how this usually works. Congress enacts an enabling statute creating an administrative agency. The agency, with that guidance, then promulgates specific rules to address the issue. Congress does not promulgate the specific rules because congress has no expertise. The agency, however, employs the people with the expertise. It's not a perfect system, but it's far better than congress trying to legislate specific rules on subjects it knows little about. I suggest reading up on the Administrative Procedure Act and executive agencies in general.
Click to expand...

In many cases, that is how regulatory agencies work. In this specific case, congress considered legislation, but did not enact any. No enabling legislation was passed. The agency reached. In any case, the regulations were rescinded.

And... I actually did respond to your other points. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
I’ve been on the internet since dial-up. Never was I ever charged for anything other than access. And I have had Comcast since they have offered internet. This is just the typical current day political melodrama. It’s like some people think if they throw a big enough tantrum they will actually get what they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom