• 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 issues Net Neutrality Rules

What do you think of the FCC's statement on Net Neutrality?

  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .
Hard Truth said:
"...the debate around Net neutrality centers on whether ISPs (Internet service providers) can limit, tier, block or otherwise affect Internet performance. Without Net neutrality, ISPs can even charge higher fees for more bandwidth and higher-speed access to one vendor and not others, thus establishing tiers of service. For instance, without Net neutrality, an ISP could sign a lucrative contract with Netflix, then charge lower rates for its customers who use Netflix rather than Blockbuster. Or, if an ISP preferred (e.g. had a financial interest in) one search engine over another, that ISP could force its customers to the preferred search engine by charging customers more each time they used any other search engine...."

- See more at: Net Neutrality in a Nutshell | E-Commerce | E-Commerce Times
Click to expand...
It always worries me when they have 3 simple paragraphs which describe reasonable goals
they wish to achieve, but then say they have a 170 page report to describe it.
The goals sound good, but I am concerned with what may be in the other 169.5 pages.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
What Is Net Neutrality And Why Should I Care? The Non-Geek’s Guide
Click to expand...
I think I would like the geek's guide!
My concern is why there are so many pages needed describe simple goals?
The internet is much like the interstate highway system.
Any legally licensed vehicle is allowed to use the common resource, as long as they follow the rules.
Where the difference comes in, is that much of this virtual highway was paid for by private
companies, for the purpose of generating profit.
There are likely some general guidelines that ISP's should be held to, but these
would be very general.
Regulations have a tendency to have unintended consequences, and be very difficult to remove.
There may have been some abuses, but competition might limit that better than regulation.
Perhaps the role of the government, would best be served by addressing the existing regulations
which limit which ISP are allowed to operate in which areas, thus expanding competition.
 
longview said:
I think I would like the geek's guide! My concern is why there are so many pages needed describe simple goals? The internet is much like the interstate highway system. Any legally licensed vehicle is allowed to use the common resource, as long as they follow the rules. Where the difference comes in, is that much of this virtual highway was paid for by private companies, for the purpose of generating profit. There are likely some general guidelines that ISP's should be held to, but these would be very general. Regulations have a tendency to have unintended consequences, and be very difficult to remove. There may have been some abuses, but competition might limit that better than regulation.
Perhaps the role of the government, would best be served by addressing the existing regulations which limit which ISP are allowed to operate in which areas, thus expanding competition.
Click to expand...
`
You are aware of course that the FCC made a ruling today about it? This may explain it in more geekier terms; Huge Win for the Open Internet! FCC Officially Embraces Title II
 
Ockham said:
It really depends on the actual rules - the article sounds nice, but what does the government - the FCC - consider "open"? My problem with government intrusion of ANY kind with the internet as we have it today in the US, is that they, like other sectors will start to control it with an ever tightening grip. What starts out as a good and noble idea 20 years from now becomes stagnant with death and decay.
Click to expand...

They told you what "open" means. No paid prioritization, no blocking or throttling of lawful traffic
 
longview said:
I think I would like the geek's guide!
My concern is why there are so many pages needed describe simple goals?
The internet is much like the interstate highway system.
Any legally licensed vehicle is allowed to use the common resource, as long as they follow the rules.
Where the difference comes in, is that much of this virtual highway was paid for by private
companies, for the purpose of generating profit.
There are likely some general guidelines that ISP's should be held to, but these
would be very general.
Regulations have a tendency to have unintended consequences, and be very difficult to remove.
There may have been some abuses, but competition might limit that better than regulation.
Perhaps the role of the government, would best be served by addressing the existing regulations
which limit which ISP are allowed to operate in which areas, thus expanding competition.
Click to expand...

"Something undefinable might be bad" is not an argument against doing this.
 
Ockham said:
I didn't mean that it would be an expansion of government, but it would be a new area of control for the FCC because the internet was NOT viewed as a public utility prior to this announcement.

When was the last time the government injected rules and regulations into the private sector and made things BETTER?
Click to expand...

When it ruled on internet providers to require net neutrality!
 
Deuce said:
They told you what "open" means. No paid prioritization, no blocking or throttling of lawful traffic
Click to expand...

Uh huh... this is the same administration that told us what "affordable" means in the ACA.
 
Ockham said:
Uh huh... this is the same administration that told us what "affordable" means in the ACA.
Click to expand...

"Affordable" was a name for a bill. The name of a bill is not the substance of a bill. (in fact, the name is often outright deception. just take a peek at what the GOP has been up to lately)

The new regulation does what the new regulation says. If you have criticism of a particular provision, detail it. Wild speculation about the government maybe possibly doing some undefined bad thing is useless as a basis for discussion.
 
Deuce said:
"Affordable" was a name for a bill. The name of a bill is not the substance of a bill. (in fact, the name is often outright deception. just take a peek at what the GOP has been up to lately)
Click to expand...
:lamo Yeah because calling it "affordable" doesn't mean it will BE affordable.... so why then would Net Neutrality be neutral? It wouldn't.

Deuce said:
The new regulation does what the new regulation says. If you have criticism of a particular provision, detail it. Wild speculation about the government maybe possibly doing some undefined bad thing is useless as a basis for discussion.
Click to expand...
You and I both know that after this goes though, over a period of years it will be bastardized. 5 years from now we'll have FCC offices with SWAT teams buying half a million 7.62 NATO rounds to police the internet. (I'm halfway joking however the IRS and DoE both have SWAT teams).
 
Ockham said:
:lamo Yeah because calling it "affordable" doesn't mean it will BE affordable.... so why then would Net Neutrality be neutral? It wouldn't.
Click to expand...

I don't know maybe it has something to do with that "substance" part I brought up. But for some reason you... stayed focused on the name. Odd. I'm pretty sure what I was saying was don't focus on the name.


You and I both know that after this goes though, over a period of years it will be bastardized. 5 years from now we'll have FCC offices with SWAT teams buying half a million 7.62 NATO rounds to police the internet. (I'm halfway joking however the IRS and DoE both have SWAT teams).
Click to expand...

It's a good thing you're "joking" because the basis of your joke is a myth.

Again, your vague warning about a nonspecific bad thing the FCC might maybe possibly think of doing is of no use to this discussion.
 
Whoops. I may have voted Don't care. -_-
I think it's a good thing, we'll see how it plays out.
 
Helix said:
yeah, i'm a little concerned that there will be weasel wording that lets those who lobbied enough get preferential data treatment anyway.

as for net neutrality itself, i'm absolutely for it. sites like this one would be languishing in the slow lane so that facebook, twitter, and netflix can load more quickly. startups would also have more trouble competing. **** that.
Click to expand...

i agree 100%
the idea and purpose of Net Neutrality is just and smart . . . .
we just have to wait and see on its "execution"
 
I voted don't care..

FCC made a big ruling the other day which should make the "net-neutrality" debate pointless. FCC defined broadband as 25mbps/3mbps (down/up) which will push providers to lower rates to meet the new definition. FCC can redefine this any time it wants, so in 5 years when we (society) are bitching about lack of speed, all FCC has to do is redefine again and say 100mpbs/15 or 20mbps. Doing this makes the net neutrality debate pointless because Netflix users and so on.. will have their cake and so will regular users.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
You are aware of course that the FCC made a ruling today about it? This may explain it in more geekier terms; Huge Win for the Open Internet! FCC Officially Embraces Title II
Click to expand...
Thanks for the extra article, it did add one piece of data,
reversing the FCC’s 2002 decision to treat broadband as an “information service” rather than a “telecommunications service.”
Click to expand...
I still have the same concerns, that we do not know the actual regulations proposed.
Within the telecommunication services, they set up competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC),
where one vendor has exclusive rights to a geographic area. Other vendors can supply service,
but only by renting the space from their own competition. Oh yea, the rent rates do not seem to be
regulated. If you have ever moved to a new area, and been told the phone company is X,
and that is your only choice. this is why.
Most areas have several ISP's, reclassifying them as“telecommunications service, could block
all but one per area, like the other “telecommunications service", the phone company.
 
Deuce said:
"Something undefinable might be bad" is not an argument against doing this.
Click to expand...
True, it might not be bad, but the federal Government does have a track record.
I have to deal with the public switched telephone network folks sometimes, and they are not
what you would call flexible. You ether select the vendor in the area, or you pay a high price to use
your selected vendor. (Your vendor has to rent space from the local vendor, at rates the competitor sets.)
 
longview said:
True, it might not be bad, but the federal Government does have a track record.
I have to deal with the public switched telephone network folks sometimes, and they are not
what you would call flexible. You ether select the vendor in the area, or you pay a high price to use
your selected vendor. (Your vendor has to rent space from the local vendor, at rates the competitor sets.)
Click to expand...

This is already the case with cable internet providers.
 
longview said:
Thanks for the extra article, it did add one piece of data,I still have the same concerns, that we do not know the actual regulations proposed.
Within the telecommunication services, they set up competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC), where one vendor has exclusive rights to a geographic area. Other vendors can supply service, but only by renting the space from their own competition. Oh yea, the rent rates do not seem to be regulated. If you have ever moved to a new area, and been told the phone company is X, and that is your only choice. this is why. Most areas have several ISP's, reclassifying them as“telecommunications service, could block
all but one per area, like the other “telecommunications service", the phone company.
Click to expand...

As I said, a lot more need to be done, to wit:

“NEW RULES: FCC Chair Unveils ‘Net Neutrality.'” That’s a pretty apt description of how the world sees FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s announcement today that he wants to change the way the nation’s telecommunications regulator views the internet.

The problem is that it’s not entirely accurate. To be sure, the FCC made a remarkable announcement—one that many pundits viewed as impossible a year ago—but it’s also easy to get caught up in the rhetoric and miss what’s really going on here.

You see, the FCC didn’t unveil net neutrality today. It has backed the idea of net neutrality for about a decade. That’s why your internet service provider doesn’t already charge you extra for running Skype or a virtual private network, or even a router.

What’s changing here is the way the FCC is classifying broadband internet. And the reason this is happening is because the courts have told the FCC that it simply can’t enforce net neutrality unless it does this. A year ago, Chairman Wheeler thought he could keep the courts happy with some regulatory jujutsu, but net neutrality lobbyists, the President, and millions of people told him otherwise.

So now Wheeler wants to turn back the clock and classify broadband the same way that DSL was classified back in the 1990s—as a regulated transmission service. When people talk about Title II, they’re really talking about a return to the way that internet service providers were originally regulated, under the Title II section of the 1934 Communications Act.

It’s true that Title II lets the FCC set rules for your internet service provider with a much firmer hand. That’s why the AT&Ts, Comcasts and Verizons of the world hate it. But the real question here is whether the FCC is going to actually use any of those powers to change much of anything. Judging from the FCC’s comments today, things could really change for wireless broadband users, but the agency isn’t really proposing to use Title II to do anything new in the wired broadband world." - Source​

The devil, as they say, is in the details.
 
Deuce said:
This is already the case with cable internet providers.
Click to expand...
With the ISP's some transit the telephone system (ATT Uverse) Some lease service from the cable
companies (Earthlink), I am not sure what the dish people do, (I wounder if the latency /tcp window
size eats up their effective bandwidth).
I have to wonder how the reclassification will affect delivery.
 
Deuce said:
I don't know maybe it has something to do with that "substance" part I brought up. But for some reason you... stayed focused on the name. Odd. I'm pretty sure what I was saying was don't focus on the name.
Click to expand...
Of course I stay focused on the name because naming a bill "affordable" and then clearly the substance is NOT affordable is both ironic and sadly so. The substance as you so aptly point out is not working well - making the irony that much more sharp. And I thought liberals had a good sense of humor....



Deuce said:
It's a good thing you're "joking" because the basis of your joke is a myth.
Click to expand...
As with most of your posts that is only half true. The FCC doesn't as yet have it's own Spec Ops groups However, it wouldn't surprise me at all since other seemingly innocuous group DO have swat type armed groups like the Fish and Wildlife Service among others:

Huffpo said:
Among those federal agencies laying claim to their own law enforcement divisions are the State Department, Department of Education, Department of Energy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service, to name just a few.
Click to expand...
SWAT Team Mania: The War Against the American Citizen | John W. Whitehead

Deuce said:
Again, your vague warning about a nonspecific bad thing the FCC might maybe possibly think of doing is of no use to this discussion.
Click to expand...
Of course it does since you're view is there is NEVER enough government involved in American's lives and my view is there is WAY TOO MUCH government involvement in American lives. And as we've seen, government involvement generally dooms whatever it's involvement, albeit government certainly benefits.
 
Ockham said:
Of course it does since you're view is there is NEVER enough government involved in American's lives and my view is there is WAY TOO MUCH government involvement in American lives. And as we've seen, government involvement generally dooms whatever it's involvement, albeit government certainly benefits.
Click to expand...

I think there are plenty of areas the government gets overly involved. This is not one of them. Eliminating paid prioritization is good for innovation, good for entrepreneurs, good for business, good for customers, good for the internet itself, and good for the country. ISP's are the only one's who take any negative impact from it, and that's a minor hit to the potential bottom line of a multibillion dollar industry. Paid prioritization is a barrier to new entry, a barrier to competition. And it's a barrier that serves nobody except a few monopolies or near-monopolies.
 
Deuce said:
I think there are plenty of areas the government gets overly involved. This is not one of them. Eliminating paid prioritization is good for innovation, good for entrepreneurs, good for business, good for customers, good for the internet itself, and good for the country. ISP's are the only one's who take any negative impact from it, and that's a minor hit to the potential bottom line of a multibillion dollar industry. Paid prioritization is a barrier to new entry, a barrier to competition. And it's a barrier that serves nobody except a few monopolies or near-monopolies.
Click to expand...

Yes the evil corporations and monopolies must be broken up! :roll: Same broken tune....
 
Ockham said:
Yes the evil corporations and monopolies must be broken up! :roll: Same broken tune....
Click to expand...

I support competition and entrepreneurship, which is why I support net neutrality. You disagree. No reason to get all snippy about it and start throwing around hyperbole like "evil." You're attacking some caricature you've concocted rather than actual arguments I'm making. When you're done doing that, let me know ok?
 
Ockham said:
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality | WIRED

The rhetoric sounds great... but this, coming from the same government who gave us the non-Affordable couldn't Care less about you Act. Normally, government intrusion is the bell that tolls doom for us all. What does the government consider "open" does not mean it's what we would consider "open". So is this really about keeping the internet open and free or is it about government control?

Weigh in...
Click to expand...


Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission.
Click to expand...

Where is the "we" in this?

"using this authority I hereby declare the way we are dong things is perfect...what? what submissions from the public...did you not here me, using this authority, now shut up and we will have no more Obama this or Obama that...we'll let you know when elections will be held
 
Deuce said:
I support competition and entrepreneurship, which is why I support net neutrality. You disagree. No reason to get all snippy about it and start throwing around hyperbole like "evil." You're attacking some caricature you've concocted rather than actual arguments I'm making. When you're done doing that, let me know ok?
Click to expand...
You don't support competition and entrepreneurship you support government control and expansion. They're not one in the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom