• 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!!

jonny5 said:
And I prefer freedom, capitalism, free markets. History has proven them to be the best way to efficiently distribute resources.
Click to expand...



Yes. I prefer the freedom afforded by our civil rights that need to be protected. Capitalism goes hand-in-hand with democracy. There is no such thing as a free market and Trump wants trade restrictions to make the markets less free. Government is needed to, among other things, protect all that you listed, and to protect democracy against plutocrats and keep such freedoms as given under net-neutrality. Government should step in only when the private system isn’t working. That’s what happened with healthcare, which wasn’t working. Now companies can no longer deny coverage and many more millions of people now have coverage that would not have happened but for the ACA.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Do your own DD, then. That site was spun out of an old Heritage blog.

Interesting that "the daily signal" doesn't have an "About Us" or similar page on their site.
Click to expand...

I really don't care where it was spun out of. I do not click on wikipedia links. If you have a real source you would like me to look at, post it and do so without asking me do it for you.
 
CMPancake said:
I know full well what a monopoly is, and it's something you are wildly in favor of producing.




Good for you, however in my bodunk part of the woods, I only have access to Boingo. Which sucks, and they don't need to strive to be any better because Boingo knows I can't go anywhere else for internet.



Not true in the slightest.



Oh right, I forgot I was conversing with a compulsive liar.



That's because after lobbying, ISPs were given billions of tax payer dollars by the federal government in order to install broadband and fiber-optic lines.

https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/broadbandgrants/comments/61BF.pdf

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...r-to-get-tax-breaks-then-never-delivers.shtml

You would know this if you were actually invested into the issue and didn't hop onto the "repeal Net Neutrality train" because Net Neutrality was something liberals were for.




You don't have too, I'm fully aware you do not like reality.



Good for them, but for us stuck in the woods with limited options, the repeal of Title II protections hurts us.



Quite literally fake news. All it takes is a simple google search (lets hope ISPs don't throttle google in order to push their own search engine onto us) to reveal how many times ISPs attempted to sue the FCC in order to attack consumers with predatory business practices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014)

While official regulations appeared in 2015, Net Neutrality was a principal everyone agreed with until ISPs attempted to hurt consumers for extra scratch. I really don't have much reason to continue discussing this with you if you insist on keeping yourself misinformed.
Click to expand...

You are obviously not interested in a two way discussion. Enjoy what's left of the holidays.
 
bluesmoke said:
Yes. I prefer the freedom afforded by our civil rights that need to be protected. Capitalism goes hand-in-hand with democracy. There is no such thing as a free market and Trump wants trade restrictions to make the markets less free. Government is needed to, among other things, protect all that you listed, and to protect democracy against plutocrats and keep such freedoms as given under net-neutrality. Government should step in only when the private system isn’t working. That’s what happened with healthcare, which wasn’t working. Now companies can no longer deny coverage and many more millions of people now have coverage that would not have happened but for the ACA.
Click to expand...

You have no civil right to 'use the internet'. It is not a natural thing like life or property. It is a product created by people which they sell to you. Now, if you want it to be a legal right, then pass an amendment and get 3/4 of the states to agree with you.
 
eohrnberger said:
The Internet isn't a utility, nor is it on par with water or heat or food.

There are many people who survive just fine without the Internet, ergo, it's a luxury some choose to have.
Click to expand...

In this day and age the internet is less a luxury and more a necessary utility. For instance, having a online connection at home is often vital when it comes to securing gainful employment.
 
jonny5 said:
You have no civil right to 'use the internet'. It is not a natural thing like life or property. It is a product created by people which they sell to you. Now, if you want it to be a legal right, then pass an amendment and get 3/4 of the states to agree with you.
Click to expand...



I didn't say it was a civil right. I gave the "open and free" example of net-neutrality as a freedom from profiteers taking control of the internet at the expense of the users.
 
Elroy Bean said:
In this day and age the internet is less a luxury and more a necessary utility. For instance, having a online connection at home is often vital when it comes to securing gainful employment.
Click to expand...

And there is free Internet at the library.
 
bluesmoke said:
I didn't say it was a civil right. I gave the "open and free" example of net-neutrality as a freedom from profiteers taking control of the internet at the expense of the users.
Click to expand...

You used the exact words, civil rights.

I prefer the freedom afforded by our civil rights that need to be protected.

Government is needed to, among other things, protect all that you listed, and to protect democracy against plutocrats and keep such freedoms as given under net-neutrality
Click to expand...

Open and free internet is not a freedom. It requires govt forcing others to let you use their property in the way that you want. Freedom is not "forcing others to do things for you".
 
jonny5 said:
You used the exact words, civil rights.



Open and free internet is not a freedom. It requires govt forcing others to let you use their property in the way that you want. Freedom is not "forcing others to do things for you".
Click to expand...



Allow me to edify. Civil rights afford us freedoms. Like, freedom from discrimination. Use of the internet is not a civil right. I did not mean to say, and did not state, that use of the internet was a civil right.

There are aspects of the internet that is as open and free until someone, like the government, forces the repeal of protections, like net-neutrality. The 1964 and 1965 CRA is law passed by the government, I guess what you call “forcing”, affords people protection from discrimination and allow those people to enjoy more freedom than otherwise would be.
 
Thanks Republicans.....you just gave the 18-30 group a reason to get to the polls. Us liberals can't thank you all enough.
 
Fraggle Rock said:
Thanks Republicans.....you just gave the 18-30 group a reason to get to the polls. Us liberals can't thank you all enough.
Click to expand...

I am quite sure that the 18 to 30 year olds will be very appreciative of the repeal of the individual healthcare mandate as well as the tax cuts. As I recall, the left in 1980-88 that the 18 to 30 year olds would rush to the polls and vote for Carter and Mondale.. That did not pan out for them.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Signal

Owned and operated by the Heritage Foundation. The opinions they are paid to promote aren't a mystery.

:lamo
Click to expand...

If you are to dismiss organizations you dislike, then yo be fair, you must dismiss organizatiojn you like that our opposition desn't. To just flat out dismiss them out of your bigotry against them is telling of your integrity.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Sorry....I do not click on links to sources with material that can be edited by the reader.
Click to expand...

Yes, as good as wiki is for some things, it is very bad for anything that has political influence.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Do your own DD, then. That site was spun out of an old Heritage blog.

Interesting that "the daily signal" doesn't have an "About Us" or similar page on their site.
Click to expand...

That in itself doen's mean you need to use the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

Is that the best you have?

Can you argue the science at all, or just repeat what the pundits say?
 
ObamacareFail said:
You are obviously not interested in a two way discussion. Enjoy what's left of the holidays.
Click to expand...

Some people only know what their favorite propaganda masters spoon feed them.

It is sad, isn't it...
 
Elroy Bean said:
In this day and age the internet is less a luxury and more a necessary utility. For instance, having a online connection at home is often vital when it comes to securing gainful employment.
Click to expand...

The employment offices have computers to be used.

It is a luxury.
 
bluesmoke said:
Allow me to edify. Civil rights afford us freedoms. Like, freedom from discrimination. Use of the internet is not a civil right. I did not mean to say, and did not state, that use of the internet was a civil right.

There are aspects of the internet that is as open and free until someone, like the government, forces the repeal of protections, like net-neutrality. The 1964 and 1965 CRA is law passed by the government, I guess what you call “forcing”, affords people protection from discrimination and allow those people to enjoy more freedom than otherwise would be.
Click to expand...

Then we're in agreement. There is no legal or moral principle that requires ISPs to grant access to their network, or stop them from controlling how its used.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, as good as wiki is for some things, it is very bad for anything that has political influence.
Click to expand...

Yes...out of the arena of politics or politicized issues, it can be a useful blog. However even then, I would not take it as the last word.
 
jonny5 said:
Then we're in agreement. There is no legal or moral principle that requires ISPs to grant access to their network, or stop them from controlling how its used.
Click to expand...



Unless the courts say otherwise. This matter is being brought before the courts. The courts were not a part of our discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom