• 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!

Do You Believe There Should Be a "Pay to Play" System on the Internet

Do You Believe There Should Be a "Pay to Play" System on the Internet

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • No

    Votes: 44 93.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 1 2.1%

  • Total voters
    47
What about the ISP's right to freedom of association?!


:2razz:

Yep, this is where property rights break down especially egregiously. Monopolies, even local ones, demonstrate that businesses take up an 'economic space' in the system. One which we have the right to grant, deny or regulate based on what is best for society.
 
Would you support charging everyone a daily fee for the air that they breathe?

A head tax is, in fact, the tax with the least misallocation.
In this case it might be more enlightening to ask, if you can support a system that charges for bread and water.
 
A head tax is, in fact, the tax with the least misallocation.
In this case it might be more enlightening to ask, if you can support a system that charges for bread and water.




I support a system that does the most good for everyone, with the least burden on anyone.
 
Do you believe the FCC should allow a "pay to play" system on the internet?
A new FCC Chair threatens to let cable and phone companies create an Internet fast lane for companies that can afford it and a slow lane for everyone else who cannot afford it.

From a capitalist point of view, the owners of the fiber should be allowed to do whatever they want with that service. If that means creating a multitiered level of service, that should be their right.

But from a societal point of view that favors the overall economy, the pay to play system would be a huge drag on the economy.
 
Just give everyone free dial-up. Little to no infrastructure startup costs.
 
Just give everyone free dial-up. Little to no infrastructure startup costs.
But then we'd all need landlines again. Some people don't have those anymore.

Also, holy **** that **** is slow.
 
But then we'd all need landlines again. Some people don't have those anymore.

Also, holy **** that **** is slow.

I'm sure they can make it to where a jack can be used for an internet signal and not a phone line. If not, just throw it in. Nobody would use it.

As far as speed, I couldn't give a rat's ass. You shouldn't be able to get great with free. Hell, maybe I should bitch about how I don't get HBO or Skinemax for free. And why shouldn't I have a Porsche instead of my Tracker. While we're at it, filet mignon should be the same price as chicken thighs.
 
I'm sure they can make it to where a jack can be used for an internet signal and not a phone line. If not, just throw it in. Nobody would use it.

As far as speed, I couldn't give a rat's ass. You shouldn't be able to get great with free. Hell, maybe I should bitch about how I don't get HBO or Skinemax for free. And why shouldn't I have a Porsche instead of my Tracker. While we're at it, filet mignon should be the same price as chicken thighs.
I don't expect free. I would expect to be taxed to support the system.

But, IMO, at the least the core backbones need to be publicly owned.
 
I don't expect free. I would expect to be taxed to support the system.

But, IMO, at the least the core backbones need to be publicly owned.

I'd rather reduce taxes and people can pay for their own if they want. It's better for me to keep more of my paycheck and keep stealing my neighbor's bandwidth.
 
Well, first, the FCC is over broadcasts, as in radio or the tv you get with rabbit ears... They have no claim over the internet.

Net neutrality is what makes the internet as valuable as it is,if companies control the information then all unpopular opinions will get shut out. (Ie, no more debate politics, or you pay the premium).

Bye bye free speech on the internet.

The do but the don't. The language of the Communications Act of 1934 that established the FCC give them authority over all forms of electronic communications. They've just historically treated over the air communications as "public" and wired communications as "private" with a less degree of regulation. They have the authority to regulate the Internet. I wish they wouldn't except for stopping fraud, spam and if somebody is going to regulate it I'd rather it be the US and not some international body.
 
I believe internet speeds should not be regulated or throttled while holding consumers hostage.

:lol: you just said that they should be regulated and throttled, specifically that all should be mandated down to the speed of the slowest player.
 
From a capitalist point of view, the owners of the fiber should be allowed to do whatever they want with that service. If that means creating a multitiered level of service, that should be their right.

But from a societal point of view that favors the overall economy, the pay to play system would be a huge drag on the economy.

That would be like the power company telling you the types of equipment you can use that electrical connection to power.

So, no, you pay for the connection, not for the "stuff" going through the connection.
 
That would be like the power company telling you the types of equipment you can use that electrical connection to power.

Well yeah. It's kind of like that. We simply don't let them do that because of societal needs.

So, no, you pay for the connection, not for the "stuff" going through the connection.

In a pure capitalist society a power company COULD do that.
 
Well yeah. It's kind of like that. We simply don't let them do that because of societal needs.



In a pure capitalist society a power company COULD do that.
In some ways they DO limit what you can connect to a power line - but it's built into the systems - you can't plug a toaster into a 3-phase line unless you rewire it. No idea why you'd want to though...


Edit: OK that example is bad...there are 3-phase toasters...according to a google search I just ran cause I was curious...

How about...you can't plug a single-phase piece of equipment into a 3-phase line?
 
Do you believe the FCC should allow a "pay to play" system on the internet?
A new FCC Chair threatens to let cable and phone companies create an Internet fast lane for companies that can afford it and a slow lane for everyone else who cannot afford it.

My $52.95 a month for internet access isn't paying enough? :roll:
 
In some ways they DO limit what you can connect to a power line - but it's built into the systems - you can't plug a toaster into a 3-phase line unless you rewire it. No idea why you'd want to though...

You don't actually get 3 phase power in a residence... You do get phase to neutral (120 V) and a phase to phase connection (208 V)... But your point is valid.
 
You don't actually get 3 phase power in a residence... You do get phase to neutral (120 V) and a phase to phase connection (208 V)... But your point is valid.
I think you COULD have 3-phase in a residence...but the installation fees might be...extreme...
 
In some ways they DO limit what you can connect to a power line - but it's built into the systems - you can't plug a toaster into a 3-phase line unless you rewire it. No idea why you'd want to though...


Edit: OK that example is bad...there are 3-phase toasters...according to a google search I just ran cause I was curious...

How about...you can't plug a single-phase piece of equipment into a 3-phase line?

Haha. My point is that in a truly capitalist society, a utility could require as part of a service contract a limitation of what you can plug in. It would be bad for society, but it would be the utility's right. Applying the same logic, an ISP could easily do what it wants with its fiber, including making tiers. Again, I think it's bad for society, but it WOULD be within their rights as a company who owns the fiber.
 
Haha. My point is that in a truly capitalist society, a utility could require as part of a service contract a limitation of what you can plug in. It would be bad for society, but it would be the utility's right. Applying the same logic, an ISP could easily do what it wants with its fiber, including making tiers. Again, I think it's bad for society, but it WOULD be within their rights as a company who owns the fiber.
Which is why I think it might be better were the fiber publicly owned and maintained, so that all can use it.

Obviously, however, giving everyone the best possible connection would be prohibitively expensive.
Maintaining the main traffic lines, routers, and whatnot, would be more doable.
 
Do you believe the FCC should allow a "pay to play" system on the internet?
A new FCC Chair threatens to let cable and phone companies create an Internet fast lane for companies that can afford it and a slow lane for everyone else who cannot afford it.

Doesn't this already exist with some services. I live in the country and I have skybeam internet service. You pay for the speed you want. I can't afford the highest speed they offer, so I pay a little less than some, and suffer through buffering videos
 
Back
Top Bottom