• 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 support Net Neutrality?

Do you support Net Neutrality?

  • Total voters
    68
celticwar17 said:
I'm concerned how the proposed law could be abused.
Click to expand...
How? It's a law that has been used to regulate all telecoms for decades. There is no potential there for abuse.

celticwar17 said:
At least we have the power of being a consumer, if a major carrier started to implement this at a large scale, then that would make them much less desirable amongst the competition... losing customers. If all the carriers come to a group consensus to discriminating data at the same time, than I feel like they should be held in contempt for violating anti-trust laws.
At least we have that power in this case... the other case could let the government beast in, so to say... these are just my concerns, if someone can give me the confidence that the current administration will not use net neutrality as a means to get more power over the internet... that would be great.
Click to expand...
What consumer power -- 30% of Americans only have one available ISP in their area. 67% have 2 or fewer. I'm one of them. I can either choose Comcast (who I loathe) or RCN. I have no power as a consumer.
 
celticwar17 said:
I'm concerned how the proposed law could be abused.


At least we have the power of being a consumer, if a major carrier started to implement this at a large scale, then that would make them much less desirable amongst the competition... losing customers. If all the carriers come to a group consensus to discriminating data at the same time, than I feel like they should be held in contempt for violating anti-trust laws.
At least we have that power in this case... the other case could let the government beast in, so to say... these are just my concerns, if someone can give me the confidence that the current administration will not use net neutrality as a means to get more power over the internet... that would be great.
Click to expand...

Anti-trust laws? They don't have to discriminate against the same data. Comcast execs have already admitted they don't share the same markets as other providers. So what can you do when you live in a city where Comcast is the only provider available? You move to a place where the kind of data you're trying to access isn't being throttled?

As it stands, anyone would have trouble making the case that if Comcast decides to discriminate against forums, and COX decides to discriminate against sites like Yahoo, they'd be engaging in a violation of antitrust laws. They could even have open communication about the "packages" they offer and there wouldn't be a single violation of antitrust laws. Hell, they could even tell each other what websites they plan to block using flyers and there wouldn't be an issue.

Arguments that ignore the fact that many of these companies have monopolies in various markets fail.
 
Hatuey said:
Anti-trust laws? They don't have to discriminate against the same data. Comcast execs have already admitted they don't share the same markets as other providers. So what can you do when you live in a city where Comcast is the only provider available? You move to a place where the kind of data you're trying to access isn't being throttled?

As it stands, anyone would have trouble making the case that if Comcast decides to discriminate against forums, and COX decides to discriminate against sites like Yahoo, they'd be engaging in a violation of antitrust laws. They could even have open communication about the "packages" they offer and there wouldn't be a single violation of antitrust laws. Hell, they could even tell each other what websites they plan to block using flyers and there wouldn't be an issue.

Arguments that ignore the fact that many of these companies have monopolies in various markets fail.
Click to expand...

I wasn't arguing anything... I am simply concerned.
 
brothern said:
How? It's a law that has been used to regulate all telecoms for decades. There is no potential there for abuse.


What consumer power -- 30% of Americans only have one available ISP in their area. 67% have 2 or fewer. I'm one of them. I can either choose Comcast (who I loathe) or RCN. I have no power as a consumer.
Click to expand...

There is very little consumer power as you pointed out...

You still haven't address any reason why I should trust the current administration to not abuse this proposal.
 
celticwar17 said:
There is very little consumer power as you pointed out...

You still haven't address any reason why I should trust the current administration to not abuse this proposal.
Click to expand...

Because the world doesn't revolve around you? How do I trust the soon-to-be legislators that they have any understanding of the Internet and won't get bought out by ILECs?
 
celticwar17 said:
I wasn't arguing anything... I am simply concerned.
Click to expand...

I must have read this part wrong:

If all the carriers come to a group consensus to discriminating data at the same time, than I feel like they should be held in contempt for violating anti-trust laws.
Click to expand...
 
whysoserious said:
Because the world doesn't revolve around you? How do I trust the soon-to-be legislators that they have any understanding of the Internet and won't get bought out by ILECs?
Click to expand...
You can't without complete transparency of the issue and a political leader that keeps it's integrity.... right now, I don't think we have that, so I would almost think its better to wait this issue out and see what the companies actually do.
 
Hatuey said:
I must have read this part wrong:
Click to expand...

I am for Network Neutrality... for what it is actually defined as... not some bastardized version concocted by political crooks. That is more important to me and is a worse alternative to avoid.
 
celticwar17 said:
You can't without complete transparency of the issue and a political leader that keeps it's integrity.... right now, I don't think we have that, so I would almost think its better to wait this issue out and see what the companies actually do.
Click to expand...

The bill doesn't have to be complicated. I just needs to say the right things (treat all data packets the same, etc), and that's it. There isn't any need for government oversight? Am I right? The end users will be the police, and any violation of net neutrality would bring about lawsuits.

It just seems like a no brainer, so hopefully both sides can come together and get it done. Obama doesn't need to make this complicated.
 
celticwar17 said:
I am for Network Neutrality... for what it is actually defined as... not some bastardized version concocted by political crooks. That is more important to me and is a worse alternative to avoid.
Click to expand...

Can you tell us the difference between net neutrality in 2012 and net neutrality in 2014? Can you tell us what net neutrality meant in its first form? How was achieved? Who played a role in achieving it?
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
What actual alternatives do you have in your city if you were to drop your ISP? When I say actual alternative I am not talking about setting up a AOL account so that you can get internet over your phone line.
Click to expand...

'Necessity is the mother of invention'.

One would only abandon a local ISP if it became unusable or unaffordable to do otherwise. Were companies/corporations to create this situation, they would eventually go bankrupt.

So I think it extremely unlikely the above scenario would come to pass. I think it more likely that, in the long run, freedom from forced net neutrality would make the Internet less expensive for the masses, not more so.
This is what I meant in my original statement.

The government meddles in almost every thing FAR too much...this is another example of that, imo.

Let the free market decide how the Internet should be run.
 
DA60 said:
'Necessity is the mother of invention'.

One would only abandon a local ISP if it became unusable or unaffordable to do otherwise. Were companies/corporations to create this situation, they would eventually go bankrupt.

So I think it extremely unlikely the above scenario would come to pass. I think it more likely that, in the long run, freedom from forced net neutrality would make the Internet less expensive for the masses, not more so.
This is what I meant in my original statement.

The government meddles in almost every thing FAR too much...this is another example of that, imo.

Let the free market decide how the Internet should be run.
Click to expand...

Well I guess repeal the bill of rights, too. I mean, you don't want them meddling in your freedoms, right?

And again, ILECs represent a nationwide oligarchy and local monopolies. Meanwhile, you yourself just said the product is inelastic. There is no such thing as a free market when dealing with an inelastic product that is delivered by a monopoly.
 
whysoserious said:
Well I guess repeal the bill of rights, too. I mean, you don't want them meddling in your freedoms, right?

And again, ILECs represent a nationwide oligarchy and local monopolies. Meanwhile, you yourself just said the product is inelastic. There is no such thing as a free market when dealing with an inelastic product that is delivered by a monopoly.
Click to expand...

Come on now...we are talking about business issues...not basic human rights.

If you are going to spew nonsense, you will be ignored by me.


I believe the government - outside of health/safety, environmental damage and basic law violations - should stay COMPLETELY out of the economy. Including regulating the Internet.

You obviously disagree.

We are done here.


Good day.
 
DA60 said:
Come on now...we are talking about business issues...not basic human rights.

If you are going to spew nonsense, you will be ignored by me.


I believe the government - outside of health/safety, environmental damage and basic law violations - should stay COMPLETELY out of the economy. Including regulating the Internet.

You obviously disagree.

We are done here.


Good day.
Click to expand...

It was to point out the idea that just because it is government regulation, that is somehow restrictive instead of the opposite. It's no more restrictive than the 1st Amendment.

And yeah, we definitely disagree on your second point - and so does every economist in the world with you. Monopolies are not an example of a free market, and they need to be treated as such. We're done here, because there is no counterpoint.
 
Nice to see here that everyone supports unprecedented control over the internet by the US government. Glad you all can trust the government with that.

Here's the problem, and here's the solution.

Should ISPs finally decide to do every horrible thing Net Neutrality advocates warn about, the only reason why ISPs would be able to do so is because they have infrastructure monopolies. Telecomm infrastructure either needs to be shared like it is in South Korea, or completely open with no protection from city governments, municipalities, so on and so forth. Focus on that and all the largely fabricated fears spouted from Net Neutrality advocates will go away when customers will have the choice to instead pay for an ISP that provides open access for a fixed unmetered monthly rate.

Now, if you end up finding yourself advocating for shared infrastructure, I recommend keeping it a local level so that the federal government has no power to mess it up for everyone.
 
recalcitrant said:
Nice to see here that everyone supports unprecedented control over the internet by the US government. Glad you all can trust the government with that.

Here's the problem, and here's the solution.

Should ISPs finally decide to do every horrible thing Net Neutrality advocates warn about, the only reason why ISPs would be able to do so is because they have infrastructure monopolies. Telecomm infrastructure either needs to be shared like it is in South Korea, or completely open with no protection from city governments, municipalities, so on and so forth. Focus on that and all the largely fabricated fears spouted from Net Neutrality advocates will go away when customers will have the choice to instead pay for an ISP that provides open access for a fixed unmetered monthly rate.

Now, if you end up finding yourself advocating for shared infrastructure, I recommend keeping it a local level so that the federal government has no power to mess it up for everyone.
Click to expand...

Nice to see another conservative that doesn't understand Net Neutrality or the Internet.

Meanwhile, you're talking about forcibly seizing infrastructure from private businesses. Talk about unprecedented government control. All of that instead of just declaring all data packets equal?
 
whysoserious said:
Nice to see another conservative that doesn't understand Net Neutrality or the Internet.
Click to expand...
Being against government mandated net neutrality makes you conservative? Damn. Harsh.

Meanwhile, you're talking about forcibly seizing infrastructure from private businesses. Talk about unprecedented government control.
Click to expand...
And there you have it, net neutrality advocates are actually supporting the corporations they're so afraid of. Business loses it's legitimacy to be treated as a private business when it relies on city governments to acquire infrastructure monopolies.

I really don't care if illegitimate infrastructure is "seized" by the same government who have protected the previous monopoly in the first place. But, that is not what shared infrastructure is. It's not a new concept. It's not unprecedented government control, it's happened, even in the United States. What's more is that it requires no mandate to service providers to regulate the internet. Even better is that aside from investment, no service provider would be denied the ability to offer an alternative service and offer open access as a benefit to their customers and not as some silly mandate. Just saying shared infrastructure is what all of you net neutrality people should be asking for if you people actually cared about how the problems came to be in the first place. But none of that is important, isn't it. You want data equality over open infrastructure, which would provide open access("data equality"), innovate how data is brought to us, and provide better customer service. No, screw all that. You don't want competition. You just want your slow cable internet to play netflix movies in HD.

Making internet a public utility doesn't make it shared infrastructure or break up any of the infrastructure monopolies that have slowed down innovation and brought us crappy customer service.
 
I listened to Ted Cruz last night and now I have a stronger opinion about net neutrality. I don't want the government to regulate the net like a utility, period. Government wants to have the ability to tax it and regulate it and the more power we give them, the more they will abuse us and find ways to screw up a good thing. There is no way I will personally support giving the government more power than they already have.
 
The question is unclear.

Do you mean real net neutrality or are you referring to the government taking action?

If it is introduced by the industry and proven through competition in the market place, sure, I support it.

If it is a government action on something that can be done without government action, then hell no.

Instead of whining about the government to do something, if those who are so concerned about it will band together, they could easily start a company to compete against existing companies. If just 1 million of them would put in $100 each, then they would have more than enough to start up in a high density area.
 
jamesrage said:
How will telling ISPs that they can't treat the internet like a cable tv or satellite tv package and that access to all websites must be treated equally going to lead to government abuse of net neutrality?
Click to expand...
The government is nothing if not creative. I cannot say "X" will happen, but let's not forget that seemingly simple concepts like civil asset forfeiture were sold to us as being simply a tool for law enforcement to deprive drug cartels of their ill-gotten gains, and we can see where that has evolved. And that's only one example.

Like the other poster said, I support the sentiment, but I fear what the government will do with it.
 
iliveonramen said:
It's not declaring it a public entity, it's declaring it a utility, which for various economic reasons means that it requires added protection for consumers.
Click to expand...
Sounds great. But when was the last time the government said, "Don't abuse 'x'", and left it at that?
 
whysoserious said:
The bill doesn't have to be complicated. I just needs to say the right things (treat all data packets the same, etc), and that's it. There isn't any need for government oversight? Am I right? The end users will be the police, and any violation of net neutrality would bring about lawsuits.

It just seems like a no brainer, so hopefully both sides can come together and get it done. Obama doesn't need to make this complicated.
Click to expand...
You're right. It doesn't have to be complicated. And it probably won't be complicated. What it probably will be is vague, which will allow government bureaucratic entities to come in afterward and add new rules based on their own interpretation of said vagueness.
 
celticwar17 said:
There is very little consumer power as you pointed out...

You still haven't address any reason why I should trust the current administration to not abuse this proposal.
Click to expand...
There's no manner in which any administration would be able to abuse ISPs being classified as common carriers. Unless you wish to suggest something, your fears are baseless.
 
celticwar17 said:
At least we have that power in this case... the other case could let the government beast in, so to say... these are just my concerns, if someone can give me the confidence that the current administration will not use net neutrality as a means to get more power over the internet... that would be great.
Click to expand...
Or future administrations. Once a government bureaucracy gets a hold of something, they pretty much never leave well-enough alone.
 
Hatuey said:
Anti-trust laws? They don't have to discriminate against the same data. Comcast execs have already admitted they don't share the same markets as other providers. So what can you do when you live in a city where Comcast is the only provider available? You move to a place where the kind of data you're trying to access isn't being throttled?
Click to expand...

I couldn't in good conscious stay in Boston with Comcast as the only provider. So I moved to the suburbs in North Jersey, but I realize to most people this isn't a huge priority. In fact, I picked the location that my apartment is in now, strictly based on two points: FIOS internet speeds and closeness to my job. In fact, if I could afford to, I'd move to an area where Google Fiber is up and running. Utah or now Austin Texas. I think if more people did that, they would be much more happier in life. However, I know not everyone is in my situation or can afford it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom