• 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!

With net neutrality gone, you will pay a lot more for your internet!!

Manc Skipper said:
Comcast have already responded.

They no longer promise that they'll:

-Not throttle back the speed at which content comes to you
-Not prioritize Internet traffic or create paid fast lanes
-Make internet accessible to low income families
Click to expand...

Link? Not because I disbelieve, but because i'd like to save the link in my bookmarks to have for if/when they finally actually do any of those things
 
LunaRose said:
YESSSS, the internet was not NOT broken in 2015….But the government was not trying to fix anything. You need understand that Net Neutrality was something the government was trying to protect. In order to protect net neutrality, which we had for 20 years prior, Obama ruled the internet to be a telecommunications service so that ISPs could not use pricing models, throttle connections, etc. How is this a bad thing????
Click to expand...

Except in the way you're using it, net neutrality the concept exists as much now as it did in the 20 years prior. Actually, net neutrality the concept exists now closer to how it existed for the 20 years prior. Now people can suggest that it's being assaulted and it's threatened to be destroyed, but you actually point out a legitimate and primary point...albeit one you likely weren't meaning to make. That net neutrality, as a concept, existed before the 2015 rules and it still exists today despite the repeal.

There is nothing in place to keep the big ISP's from throttling or creating pricing models with out NN. NN is a preventive measure to keep our internet the way it is just like you described…How is this a bad thing??? But we should just be safe and believing big ISP’s will keep us common folk in mind at their next stock holders meeting?
Click to expand...

First, your statement isn't true. There ARE some things throttling big ISPs from doing that stuff. Market forces DO exist. Now they don't exist as well as they should because of the soft monopolies most operate in, but there are still market forces. Now, many of us can feel that those market forces are hampered enough to not be incredibly effective; but that's not the same as saying there's "Nothing" to keep them from acting in this way.

Second, you kind of ignore your earlier point that you quickly tried to gloss over...the fact that without the big government regulatory protection, net neutrality as a concept existed for decades before hand.

Third...do I trust the big corporations to do what's best for me? No. But I ALSO see no real reason to trust that Government is out to do what's best for me either, OR that government won't, in it's efforts to "do best", won't end up causing other problems as well. This isn't some situation where there's the trustworthy white knight on one side and the great evil demon on the other.
 
Zyphlin said:
Link? Not because I disbelieve, but because i'd like to save the link in my bookmarks to have for if/when they finally actually do any of those things
Click to expand...

They were on their net neutrality statement page. No longer.
 
Fraggle Rock said:
Just another nail in the Republicans coffin for the next several years. This issue will definitely resonate with the 18-30 group. Trump and his FCC verizon cronies just woke up a sleeping monster and gave them a good reason to go to the polls
Click to expand...

I do expect, if this continues and IF the worst case type scenarios end up happening (which frankly is still a question mark), then it's going to hurt Republicans as the current 18-30 crop because the 30-50 crop that tend to be your most enthusiastic and tuned in voters.
 
Manc Skipper said:
They were on their net neutrality statement page. No longer.
Click to expand...

Whoops! I read your post wrong. I thought you were stating they said that they WOULD do that in response to the ruling (I.E. saying that even without it gone, they'd uphold it). I just went back and saw you said they removed it.

That makes SOOOOO Much more sense with Comcast ROFL
 
eohrnberger said:
I can see where this can make business sense. Once the infrastructure is procured, installed and setup, those costs are one and done. I think the greater costs come with servicing those customers, i.e. answering the get help phone, have knowledgeable people to answer and respond, and occasionally to tweak some setting or another.
Click to expand...

And that is where the smaller ISPs do well (other than price). When I called my old ISP I was not sent to some call centre in India, I got to talk to someone actually in the country. Also one thing I loved was when the CRTC ruled that the big ISPs were overcharging the little ones for rent my ISP lowered my bill by $10/month.
 
Zyphlin said:
Whoops! I read your post wrong. I thought you were stating they said that they WOULD do that in response to the ruling (I.E. saying that even without it gone, they'd uphold it). I just went back and saw you said they removed it.

That makes SOOOOO Much more sense with Comcast ROFL
Click to expand...

Here's a link to the tweet I read it from. (I hope. I have trouble with these)

https://twitter.com/henshaw/status/941133127283564544
 
Carjosse said:
And that is where the smaller ISPs do well (other than price). When I called my old ISP I was not sent to some call centre in India, I got to talk to someone actually in the country. Also one thing I loved was when the CRTC ruled that the big ISPs were overcharging the little ones for rent my ISP lowered my bill by $10/month.
Click to expand...

In my area, I can choose from:
  • Verizon
  • Comcast
  • AT&T
  • WideOpen West
  • Probably a few others I'm not familiar with
I stick with WOW. While they may not be the cheapest, their service is the most reliable, and when I call for tech support, oh, once every 2-3 years, I speak to someone in country. it's only a 30x5 Mb line, but it's just fine for my needs, and it's not over subscribed, so I do get what I pay for,

I see no need for disrupting what appears to be presently working just fine, especially not with government interference.
 
Last edited:
Everything seemed fine before Net Neutrality ,so what’s the problem now.... internet does not need or want censorship and regulation from our corrupt and purchased government.
 
Can you buy an iPhone X at the same price as a generic Boost Mobile Phone? Nope! If you want top-tier phones, you have to pay top tier prices. If u want top tier internet speed PAY FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!
 
It's all about $. And for Trump,erasing anything he can from Obama. Washington state is filing a lawsuit. More states to follow, I'm sure. Can we keep it in the courts for the next 3 years?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
And the American people will continue to get ripped off.....just look at cable tv....many decades of paying far more than we should.
Click to expand...

we should? lol


maybe your company should pay u less

btw get a TV antenna...or is free tv to much?
 
Rosie1 said:
Washington state is filing a lawsuit. More states to follow, I'm sure. Can we keep it in the courts for the next 3 years?
Click to expand...

Lawsuit to stop the Federal Communications Commission’s rollback of rules

Have these clown attorneys ever read the US Constitution?? States have NO RIGHT to demand anything from the Federal Government regarding Federal Laws, Rules and Regulations.

Every Lawyer involved in this should be disbarred BY tomorrow morning for bringing nonsense like this to a federal court.
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
And the American people will continue to get ripped off.....just look at cable tv....many decades of paying far more than we should.
Click to expand...
Cable TV is fcc regulated

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Lutherf said:
Just half an hour ago I got a notification from COX that if I wanted to continue using Netflix there would be a $3200/mo surcharge on my bill. If I want to use STEAM it's another $4800. I called Comcast to see if they could make me a better deal and they charged me $8700 just for making the call.

OMG!!!! We're all gonna die!!!!
Click to expand...
You got off cheap, stop bitch in snowflake

(Sarcasm intentional )

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Lutherf said:
I seem to remember paying for what I used way before this "net neutrality" stuff. Back in the day I got tired of my AOL dial up so I purchased DSL from the phone company. They charged me twice or more than AOL did. Then again, my web pages loaded in a second instead of a minute. When I was given the opportunity to purchase cable internet service it cost me more again but, suddenly, I was able to download gigabyte plus size files in minutes instead of hours or days. It never occurred to me that I was getting screwed until the anti-capitalist fear mongers explained it to me.
Click to expand...
You poor dumb bastard

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Anyway you put it, it's a big mess for the tech industry. Maybe Pi owns stock in Comcast.
 
Why is it that conservatives relentlessly, consistently, almost magically find themselves on the side of the rich and powerful
and opposed to the interests of those below? Not that liberals don’t do the same too many times, but from tax cuts, decline in worker protections, the comical comments on the poor having cell phones, stupidly getting sick, and now this, the right’s record is astounding. We have probably the lousiest income distribution in the developed world, fewest protections for workers, are behind in health stats, yet the main driving principle for much (not all) of the GOP is that the rich need more money. Maybe they are actually better people and I don’t recognize their superiority. Sad.
 
HowardBThiname said:
The Chairman of the FCC, Ajit Varadaraj Pai, is the one who pushed this through. He's been opposed to it since 2015.

By the way, he was appointed by Obama.
Click to expand...

It's a bipartisan panel, he had to appoint Republicans and they're all against net neutrality because it helps the major corporations who own them and fund their campaigns. Conservative American citizens were for net neutrality before they were against it. Maybe the swift boat veterans can produce a documentary about it.
 
Zyphlin said:
So much wrong with that....

First, one's talking about a government "regulation" restricting the actions of government, which has no potential market or profit based motivation. The other is talking about regulation of a business, that DOES have such motivations.
Click to expand...
Its like you dont know that there is a thriving big money firearms industry in the US.
Second, lets peg 1999 as the start of broadband being openly embraced; we had 16 years of evidence that plans such as what's described in the OP would not be implemented simply due to the absence of net neutrality regulation. We have some reasonable evidence to suggest this won't happen. Furthermore, while there has been talks of "fast lanes" and such by major american telecoms, I don't believe I've seen reports of any telecom in the US legitimately talking about internet "packages" such as presented in these images. Conversely, with the 2nd and guns, we don't have that relatively recent lengthy period of time as reference to suggest that it's unlikely to go in a particular direction AND we do have people in places of government that HAVE talked about a desire to ban firearms of various kinds. So the legitimate threat from one or the other is SIZEABLY different as well.
Click to expand...
The interent has changed drastically over that period of time. Not just the technology but, how it has become important to the population for many different things.
Third, I'd fight tooth and nail not to have the 2nd repealed. However, IF it did get repealed in a legitimate fashion I'd say the same thing as I've done in the post you quoted....I'd still not suggest that banning is 100% GOING to happen and start treating every 2nd amendment thumpers worst nightmares are absolute certainties prior to actual attempts to do such things. WHEN such things started occuring, I'd scream out against them and I'd highlight that this was precisely why we shouldn't have repealed. But I'm not going to act like they are actually DOING something that they're not actually doing.
Click to expand...

I assert that the only reason that anyone would go so far as even suggest repealing the 2nd is to ban guns outright and indefinitely. And I would go so far as to say that if you believe any differently (than an fill ban) you are being extremely ignorant. The same goes for ISP's, they didnt send countless amounts of money lobbying to get rid of net neutrality just because. No they had investment purposes that hinged on getting ride of a regulation that barred them from doing it. Usually when an industry fights tooth and nail to get rid of an regulation it was to do what the regulation forbid.
 
LunaRose said:
Simply "not ordering their service" is not an option. The internet is telecommunications service that is needed just like electric and water. We did the same thing with telephones...Would you simply opt out of your water service?
Click to expand...

Please explain how you would die without Internet.
 
Mustachio said:
It's a bipartisan panel, he had to appoint Republicans and they're all against net neutrality because it helps the major corporations who own them and fund their campaigns. Conservative American citizens were for net neutrality before they were against it. Maybe the swift boat veterans can produce a documentary about it.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who he appointed -- the man has been dead-set against net neutrality since its inception. And, Obama appointed him to the committee. He's not some GOPer trying to undermine democrat policies. He's an Obama boy.

I don't really know what the outcome of this latest move will be but, if it's truly detrimental, I expect it will be revisited, perhaps reversed even in the near future.

I've come to learn that virtually nothing is a bad as some folks make it out to be, and this is probably among those things.
 
LunaRose said:
Exactly, so what is wrong with making NN official? Who is it hurting? Why not protect the internet as we know it, its great.....Your not making much of an argument against NN...
Click to expand...

So, to you it is ok to restrict freedoms just in case? You really don’t understand what our country was founded on, do you? To regulate for the sake of regulating and nothing more is a crime against the people.


Sent from my iDont 6S. The S is for sucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom