• 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
cpwill said:
Yes, and you think that your speed should be faster. But you are not willing to pay for it.
Click to expand...

I believe internet speeds should not be regulated or throttled while holding consumers hostage.
 
Objective Voice said:
Dang! Maybe everyone should look into this antenna if this foolish net neutrality thing becomes reality.
Click to expand...

You need a very good wireless card installed, and the range might be up to 1/2 mile.

This is similar to what's installed on my pc, the rubber antenna is removable to facilitate a connector and cable to the antenna itself.


When my isp provider has technical problems, and I'm unable to connect, or if service slows down, I will use this setup on occasion.

dlink_pci_dwl528.jpg

mY8UpSnq5_pyEleiZV8ke0w.jpg
 
Objective Voice said:
But varying speeds is probably the only real bargaining chip ISPs have considering the much of the security features for accessing the Internet are based on what operating system runs your computer. ISPs tried providing security features, but big box security software companies like McAvee and Microsoft with their Windows Security Updates made this so-called "premium services" for ISPs obsolete.

So, other than access/download speeds coupled with premium TV channels and movies, what else can ISPs over their customers they can't get anywhere else except faster connectivity?
Click to expand...

In my neck of the woods so to speak, we have two ISPs, TWC and ATT, ATT advertises internet basic service for $14.99 per month if you bundle a U-verse package, okay, not too bad, but U-verse isn't available in my area. Grrrrr. If you want just internet, initially it's like $39.99 a month, $45.00 connection fee, plus modem purchase $80.00. Add taxes and service fees to $39.99 and you're about $50.00+. But that's just basic, about 10Mbps download, slow by today's standard.

I believe part of the problem is lack of competition, TWC and ATT seem to have this area sewn up.

NetZero 4G starts @ a low rate, wireless, rave reviews, and limited bandwidth. Unlimited bandwidth is around $100 a month, not too shabby for reliability plus it can go anywhere you do.

When I use my antenna & wireless card, it loads pretty quickly, on Applebee's and Burger King's, but with traffic like semi-tractor trailers passing by during daylight hours, the signal is interrupted constantly.
 
ecofarm said:
What about the ISP's right to freedom of association?!


:2razz:
Click to expand...

This is actually a contractual problem. In my case I pay very good money to get a information pipe that has the ability to flow information at a certain rate and to connect me to any site I wish to connect. This is what they are paid for by me when I sign up for service. If they don't wish to connect me to certain sites then they need to be upfront and clarify that restriction in their service. Netflix needs to go to its customers and tell them what's up and get their customers to bang the cage.
 
mbig said:
I'll vote at least 'maybe'.
Netflix accounts for app 1/3 of net traffic. (!)
Youtube another 18%
Between the two, over 50%.
Netflix and YouTube make up majority of US internet traffic, new report shows | Technology | theguardian.com

Does the net have unlimited capacity?
Are they even slightly slowing everyone else down?
Will they by 2018?

This is especially cogent I think, in the case of a Pay-per-view company like Netflix, whose gobbling all this currently Free capacity and making a living/Profit off it.
Shouldn't they (and their customers) be paying for what enables their Piggy biz?
Click to expand...

Netflix, Google et all already do by paying for the connection to the internet on their end. You pay for your connection on your end. Now if the ISP's are not charging enough to cover their costs maybe they need to raise the rates. But whenever I contract for internet service I make sure to get a pipe that flows at a certain rate and connects to wherever I wish to connect to. I don't buy buckets or restrictions or throttling. It's more expensive but well worth it. If your ISP is throttling you, perhaps a new isp is in order.
 
AJiveMan said:
They already do that for non business, I pay $53 a month for slow, if I want the fastest, it costs $30 more.

I say they should provide everyone, even businesses with fast, and the FCC should make these corporations comply, instead of allowing them to play their little gosh danged pricing games. I'm fed up with slow crappy service.

There should be at least a governing body to regulate how these internet corporations charge outrageous fees for crap.
Click to expand...

What would be better is if the FCC just enforced truth in advertising laws. So when a company advertises a certain speed it better run at that speed, if they try to throttle you the FCC would have a field day. Speed regulation by the way is how they can get more people on without more infrastructure.
 
DVSentinel said:
Absolutely.

Bandwidth cost money. ISPs have to pay for the bandwidth they sale. Without a "pay to play" system, then you have either the ISP or the larger users paying for the "little guy" while reducing their own bandwidth availability. It is absolutely wrong that the larger companies must made to subsidize equal market penetration/availability to it's competitors.

To put it a more traditional setting, without "pay to play", it would be like telling Walmart that has national coverage that it must pay for shipping, handling, storage and facilities for any of it's competitors to have equal market penetration. That is BS.

Perhaps you are unaware, but at least in the US, the government does not own and maintain the entire Internet. It builds and maintains those portions of it reserved for governmental use. Commercial entities build and maintain those portions of it that are used for private and commercial use.
Click to expand...

They getting money for service from customers already. Both sides pay. Netflix pay to access. We pay. This is a case of trying not just to double dip but quadruple dip. They get a access fee from both sides and then a content fee as well. You pay for the content by paying for the access to the internet sites. The internet sites pay for you to be able to access them. So my question is what is "play to play" other than double dipping, cause last I checked I already payed.
 
DVSentinel said:
And if you want to think it about it from another perspective, think of a mall. Who gets the areas near the main entrance and the highest traffic and who gets a back corner with the least amount of traffic. Simple, it's based upon who pays the most.

If Netflix and Hulu are both competing and want the best bandwidth, a limited resource, who gets the better. The one who pays for it of course.
Click to expand...

They already did. By paying their service provider for access. Why would they pay twice??
 
PirateMk1 said:
What would be better is if the FCC just enforced truth in advertising laws. So when a company advertises a certain speed it better run at that speed, if they try to throttle you the FCC would have a field day. Speed regulation by the way is how they can get more people on without more infrastructure.
Click to expand...

But pirate, lack of competition keeps prices up too. When you only have two competing for the same type of business, they tend to price what you can acquire about the same.

e.g., a commodity, like peter pan peanut butter, $6 a jar @ wally world, and $5.75 @ pick n save, and $6.50 @ piggly wiggly.

More choices is what I'd like to see, not just only two.

Yeah, the disclaimers at the bottom of advertisements, print so small, I need a magnifying glass plus my reading glasses to see it. Contract required, early termination fee of $250.00 applies, I hate that.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




To me this sounds like placing a throttle on the internet and pricing people at the bottom of the ladder out, just like they have been priced out of everything else on this planet.

I haven't supported the idea in the past, but this makes me think that we may have to have a revolution.
 
BmanMcfly said:
The control (build, toll, and maintain) the "highway", they don't associate with the vehicles (information packets) traveling on that highway.
Click to expand...

(Apology if that was sarcasm)
Click to expand...




I propose that we totally eliminate them and make the internet toll free like most highways in the USA.

What's wrong with that idea?

Who would it hurt, other than those who want to make a lot of money off of you, me, and anyone who tries to communicate on this planet?
 
ecofarm said:
They associate with websites. Presumably, some racists would want ISPs to refuse to serve blacks and to exclude all black and liberal websites.
Freedom to associate!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Anyone who wants total freedom to associate can take a rocket trip to Mars.
 
Carjosse said:
Net neutrality needs to be amended to the constitution.
Click to expand...

Would you say the same for toll bridges, gas and bread?
The net costs a lot to provide and it is economically speaking a private good, which is most efficiently supplied via market pricing. How much inefficiency do we want?
 
AJiveMan said:
They already do that for non business, I pay $53 a month for slow, if I want the fastest, it costs $30 more.

I say they should provide everyone, even businesses with fast, and the FCC should make these corporations comply, instead of allowing them to play their little gosh danged pricing games. I'm fed up with slow crappy service.

There should be at least a governing body to regulate how these internet corporations charge outrageous fees for crap.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



I would support eliminating all private entities and making the internet a government controlled, taxpayer supported utility with no charges to those who use it.
 
I'm not big on socialism, so you can imagine how I feel about net neutrality.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of course not, but the scumbags won't leave the net alone. Ever. It's just too big and scary for the slimeballs to ignore.
 
shrubnose said:
I would support eliminating all private entities and making the internet a government controlled, taxpayer supported utility with no charges to those who use it.
Click to expand...

There are some cities where internet access is free. If I lived in the downtown area of my city, wifi is free.
 
joG said:
Would you say the same for toll bridges, gas and bread?
The net costs a lot to provide and it is economically speaking a private good, which is most efficiently supplied via market pricing. How much inefficiency do we want?
Click to expand...

It is a right to equal access of data, not necessarily to the internet but that would be nice. It stops companies or other entities form exploiting people.
 
shrubnose said:
I propose that we totally eliminate them and make the internet toll free like most highways in the USA.

What's wrong with that idea?

Who would it hurt, other than those who want to make a lot of money off of you, me, and anyone who tries to communicate on this planet?
Click to expand...

Well, the companies do take on the cost of expanding and maintaining the highway.... So, short of nationalizing the internet grid, that proposal could never be possible.

Also, running that grid, once it's built is really a negligible cost, relatively speaking, so, it see this as just another cash grab.
 
joG said:
Would you say the same for toll bridges, gas and bread?
The net costs a lot to provide and it is economically speaking a private good, which is most efficiently supplied via market pricing.
How much inefficiency do we want?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Whatever it takes to have an internet that is free for all and not controlled by those who would like to use it as a cash cow.
 
AJiveMan said:
There are some cities where internet access is free. If I lived in the downtown area of my city, wifi is free.
Click to expand...
Not free, exactly - I'd bet taxes pay for that system.
 
The Mark said:
Not free, exactly - I'd bet taxes pay for that system.
Click to expand...

Free to the user.

Not sure about other cities, but most places such as restaurants and the like are free.

Comcast is turning some neighborhoods in Chicago into hot spots, for a small fee.

Chicago may be the tipping point on the way to a national Wi-Fi network.
Click to expand...
Comcast turning Chicago homes into public WiFi hotspots - Chicago Tribune

Chicago has a free broadband initiative. Possibly paid for by tax $$$. Other cities might follow, if some already haven't.

Municipal wireless network - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
shrubnose said:
Whatever it takes to have an internet that is free for all and not controlled by those who would like to use it as a cash cow.
Click to expand...

That will almost certainly mean a less good internet. I don't really understand what would be bad about paying for use. Where I live there is a charge on its use.
 
joG said:
That will almost certainly mean a less good internet.
I don't really understand what would be bad about paying for use.
Click to expand...
 Where I live there is a charge on its use.
Click to expand...




Would you support charging everyone a daily fee for the air that they breathe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom