• 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
TheDemSocialist said:
Simple why I support it. I like the internet as we now know it. I dont believe that providers should be able to dictate what speeds certain sites get (a fast lane).
Click to expand...

It makes you wonder what the internet would be if 30 or 40 years ago someone said "I like the internet as we now know it" and made it a public utility.

I guess we would be living in a vastly differently world. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing but it should be a consideration.
 
radcen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hopefully it will be vague enough that, the ISPs can come up with something new two years later that makes the law outdated. Such as it goes in the tech world. So let's say some type of framework is passed by the Republicans (not likely with Cruz leading the arguments against it) in 2015. The internet will be extremely different in 2017
 
I support the principle of net neutrality.

I support a law being passed that's very similar to the recent overturned guidelines by the FCC, that requires US entities (government and private sector alike) to generally consider all data in a neutral fashion without discrimination except in instances of legitimate network congestion issues where that discrimination is the only solution.

I do not support turning internet access into a utility at this time in a bid to enforce net neutrality, as I believe there is a better feasible option that is capable of being obtained in the next 5 years that doesn't have the same dangers as giving full regulatory control to the government that classification as a utility would provide. However, if no headway on such legislation is made, and the telecoms continue their march forward trampling neutrality principles, I could eventually get on board with such an action.
 
Fenton said:
Uhm, NO.

The fallacy that the Government could and would mandate " neutrality " or " equity " or " fairness " seems to only appeal to those who're naive enough to believe that a Government entity is sincere when they push for nonsense like this.

The title of the damn bill should raise red flags.
Click to expand...

Do you know what net neutrality is?


Look it up ....
 
ModerateGOP said:
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.
Click to expand...

You moved cities to change internet providers? And yet you're vehemently against net neutrality?

Something is very fishy here.
 
DVSentinel said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's the way deregulation and markets are supposed to work. That's also why we have cell phones. When the government broke up Ma Bell's monopoly and put telephone communication out in the market, at first there was chaos. Eventually order came as well as innovation and today we have smart phones and everyone carries them around in their pocket. That will come to an end with so called net neutrality.

Cruz says that land lines are regulated by the government under title 2, what ever that is. Net neutrality wants to put cell phones under title 2, treating them like a utility, taxing them and regulating them. They make noise that it's about competition between ISP's and quality of service but those issues should be left to the market. The market took care of AOL and likewise, in an unregulated market, the best competitors win in the end.
 
radcen said:
Or future administrations. Once a government bureaucracy gets a hold of something, they pretty much never leave well-enough alone.
Click to expand...

The government did have a hold of NN until the isps sued the FCC successfully last January. By reclassifying it as a utility they'll be able to bring back NN.
 
Zyphlin said:
I support the principle of net neutrality.

I support a law being passed that's very similar to the recent overturned guidelines by the FCC, that requires US entities (government and private sector alike) to generally consider all data in a neutral fashion without discrimination except in instances of legitimate network congestion issues where that discrimination is the only solution.

I do not support turning internet access into a utility at this time in a bid to enforce net neutrality, as I believe there is a better feasible option that is capable of being obtained in the next 5 years that doesn't have the same dangers as giving full regulatory control to the government that classification as a utility would provide. However, if no headway on such legislation is made, and the telecoms continue their march forward trampling neutrality principles, I could eventually get on board with such an action.
Click to expand...

Although I know you ended your post with the statement that if the utility classification were the only option remained to protect NN then so be it, I'm curious how the government would "bring back" the original FCC regulations that have already been successfully litigated against once already.
 
sawdust said:
That's the way deregulation and markets are supposed to work. That's also why we have cell phones. When the government broke up Ma Bell's monopoly and put telephone communication out in the market, at first there was chaos. Eventually order came as well as innovation and today we have smart phones and everyone carries them around in their pocket. That will come to an end with so called net neutrality.
Click to expand...

No, it won't, as the telecom market is largley still ruled by psueod-monopolies having the same impact as Ma Bell had...with no one in government for the most part, INCLUDING Cruz, talking about busitng those psuedo-monopolies up.

We're not in an unregulated market and there's no major push from officials on either side to change that. There's a reason why if Cox is your cable provider in your area you probably can't choose to go with Comcast or FiOS or Time Warner.
 
Cardinal said:
Although I know you ended your post with the statement that if the utility classification were the only option remained to protect NN then so be it, I'm curious how the government would "bring back" the original FCC regulations that have already been successfully litigated against once already.
Click to expand...

To my understanding the FCC didn't have the authority to put forward such regulation on their own upon the telecom companies. I believe that passage of actual legislation, bestowing legitimate regulatory authority of that one narrow notion, would be better able to stand up to legal challenge.

Essentially, the FCC tried to classify broadband providers as one thing but regulate them as another...something they could not do as they do not have that vested power from any law. However, the congress would have the power to set down regulations; to essentially create the law that the FCC could then utilize as a means of enforcing said regulation.

Take it from a different approach; lets look at immigration .

Let's say USCIS suddenly decided that it would have an internal policy as it relates to immigration where it would deem people brought here under the age of 18 as being able to be granted a green card. This would likely hold up in court, because while USCIS has perview over regulating citizenship and immigration it does not have the vest authority to go that far outside of what the law allows for.

HOWEVER, that internal policy being struck down in court wouldn't preclude the congress from coming in and passing a law saying that anyone brought here under the age of 18 is able to be granted a green card. Because unliek the USCIS, congress has the ability to make and change actual law.

The FCC didn't have the authority to apply regulation to the telecom companies because they didn't classify the telecoms as the type of carrier that the law allows them to regulate. That isn't an issue for congress passing a law.
 
recalcitrant said:
Being against government mandated net neutrality makes you conservative? Damn. Harsh.


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.
Click to expand...

I think you must be mixing me up with someone else. At no time did I say I would be opposed to your solution, I just think it's crazy that you somehow see that as less government intervention that a document that says to treat data equally.
 
I would if it was worked out properly and not just a government revenue machine.
Open the door just a little for the government and in the not so distant future........well, you get where I'm going.
I know, I know, the government would never do something like that.

I feel the government can be part of the solution......not the solution.
 
Mithros said:
You moved cities to change internet providers? And yet you're vehemently against net neutrality?

Something is very fishy here.
Click to expand...

I have not had any throttling issues with Verizon's top tiers. I pay more for the faster options. Comcast is one speed mostly in many major apartment complexes in Boston. I routinely host websites, and file share and stream netflix no issues. I had no issues on Comcast either, but the speed was too slow for my needs. In this case, I moved for the speed. Not for any policy or business practices they either support or don't.
 
recalcitrant said:
Being against government mandated net neutrality makes you conservative? Damn. Harsh.


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.
Click to expand...

Well said, It will probably work like it currently does in Europe or Canada. Where they monitor internet traffic. (which I am against) See if ISPs are throttling, then fine them for doing so. In no way, will they be able to break up monopolies with new laws in place. They don't do that today. AT&T and DirecTV are currently in merger talks because AT&T wants to acquire DirecTV bandwidth. This deal is going through and all major aspects of it has mostly already been approved.

Note: These same advocates are the same people who were SOOOO against PIPA, SOPA, and went crazy with the NSA scandal. They also are up in arms about the most basic forms of government intrusion in their own personal lives especially surrounding technology. All the while they advocate for more laws! As soon as I think I've seen everything there is to see in the world of political hypocrisy. It throws me a new one!
 
I'm ok with internet providers charging more for faster speeds, overall. That's fine. But, charging to access certain sites that don't pay what is essentially an extortion fee is out of line.

If I could pass a law, though, it would be for absolute truth in marketing. For example, the use of the word "unlimited" would be forbidden unless bandwidth usage were truly unlimited and could never be artificially throttled for any reason. They could still throttle, they'd just have to be upfront about when and why.
 
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...

Long drawn out non-answer for a simple yes or no question followed by "praise be the almighty free market". So in other words you do not have an alternative should you drop your ISP.
 
radcen said:
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.
Click to expand...

The name "civil" in regard to asset forfeiture is a huge indicator that this is it is a bad thing. As much as you been posting in the law enforcement section you should know that the standards for civil cases are less than the standards for criminal cases.In a civil case the standards of more likely than not, while in a criminal case the standard is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
radcen said:
Sounds great. But when was the last time the government said, "Don't abuse 'x'", and left it at that?
Click to expand...

That's always a possibility. If left to their own devices though cable internet providers will wield a ridiculous amount of power since they are monopolies. They will use that monopoly power to charge both users for access to the internet and hold that medium of delivery hostage to get non-value added revenue from content providers.
 
iliveonramen said:
That's always a possibility. If left to their own devices though cable internet providers will wield a ridiculous amount of power since they are monopolies. They will use that monopoly power to charge both users for access to the internet and hold that medium of delivery hostage to get non-value added revenue from content providers.
Click to expand...

So should banks not be able to charge for late charges/fees/interest rates? If the user uses a substantial amount of bandwidth they should be charged more. Therefore, since Netflix uses the MOST amount of bandwidth than any other site, besides a select few. They should get charged more. If it works on the consumer end then it should work on the business end too!
 
ModerateGOP said:
So should banks not be able to charge for late charges/fees/interest rates? If the user uses a substantial amount of bandwidth they should be charged more. Therefore, since Netflix uses the MOST amount of bandwidth than any other site, besides a select few. They should get charged more. If it works on the consumer end then it should work on the business end too!
Click to expand...



this is not quite comparable, If there is an advertised that I can get a 100mb line, it should not be hidden that if I use more than 60% of that bandwith I will be throttled.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
this is not quite comparable, If there is an advertised that I can get a 100mb line, it should not be hidden that if I use more than 60% of that bandwith I will be throttled.
Click to expand...

Only if you go over or close to being over, or with copyrighted material. This is all plainly stated with any ISP. It is extremely hard for the average user to get their usage up to the data cap ISPs provide. Cell phone plans w/4G are different.
 
Seriously? 10 people are against this? I don't want to live on this planet anymore :doh
 
ModerateGOP said:
Only if you go over or close to being over, or with copyrighted material. This is all plainly stated with any ISP. It is extremely hard for the average user to get their usage up to the data cap ISPs provide. Cell phone plans w/4G are different.
Click to expand...


Go over what? I am sold a 100mb line, I should be able to use 100mb at will. Over what?
 
kerussll said:
Seriously? 10 people are against this? I don't want to live on this planet anymore :doh
Click to expand...




The question asked isn't stating whether one supports treating all internet traffic equally, or handing it all over to the government to control the equality. there are two "net neutralities" on the table.
 
ModerateGOP said:
So should banks not be able to charge for late charges/fees/interest rates? If the user uses a substantial amount of bandwidth they should be charged more. Therefore, since Netflix uses the MOST amount of bandwidth than any other site, besides a select few. They should get charged more. If it works on the consumer end then it should work on the business end too!
Click to expand...

Cable companies already do that in some areas...cable companies do, and still would be able to charge customers for varying levels of data usage.

Last I checked, if I'm paying for a certain amount of bandwidth...why exactly should Netflix be charged or stuck in a "slow lane" for providing that content? So I have to pay twice for the same bandwidth? My monthly fee as well as higher Netflix fees that get passed on to me? Comcast gets paid double for providing me the same service? Sounds great for the Cable companies and horrible for everyone else.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom