• 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!

Does this explain net neutrality pretty well?

Dragonfly said:
What is net neutrality and how could it affect you? - BBC News

Is the video above a pretty decent, short version, explanation of what net neutrality is/does?
Click to expand...

I think everyone agree that net neutrality is good. The GOPs argument was that net neutrality existed for decades without FCC oversight. While that is true, it’s a different ball game now. Internet providers didn’t even realize how they could bilk people with non net neutrality until the Democrats started to talk about policing it. A self fulfilling prophecy where govt was scared of a problem that didn’t exist and in all the fear mongering created the problem which now most definitely does need regulation.
 
Crovax said:
I think everyone agree that net neutrality is good. The GOPs argument was that net neutrality existed for decades without FCC oversight. While that is true, it’s a different ball game now. Internet providers didn’t even realize how they could bilk people with non net neutrality until the Democrats started to talk about policing it. A self fulfilling prophecy where govt was scared of a problem that didn’t exist and in all the fear mongering created the problem which now most definitely does need regulation.
Click to expand...

No, that isn't even a remotely accurate representation of events over the past decade. It wasn't until 2014 when an FCC chairman wanted to introduce the "fast lane/slow lane" concept which would go against Net Neutrality. (Not to mention several times when companies like Comcast and Verizon were throttling websites' access until they paid a ransom to continue doing the same business as before.) If it wasn't for the Title II protections, ISPs would be able to charge you extra to access sites like this, or media that doesn't benefit them directly.
 
Did health care costs go down when the government decided that every insurance company needed to only sell policies that covered the same conditions? What happened there? In most states several insurance providers left the market place and people were left with only one or two options to choose from. Net neutrality will work the same way. The incentives to compete for market share will disappear and the result will be less innovation, less options at the consumer level and higher costs.

I know that a lot of people hate Capitalism because involves accepting risk and the potential for undesirable results but it also allows for competition to come in and find solutions to those undesirable results. Those solutions are something we used to call "progress".
 
If the government does not enforce neutrality for its own postal service then why should we expect it to do so for the internet? Commercial packets (letters/fliers) enjoy much lower rates than other packets placed into your mailbox and faster delivery merits a higher charge for that expedited service. Why should the post office, a truly public utility, remain not neutral but the internet should become (remain?) so?
 
Lutherf said:
Did health care costs go down when the government decided that every insurance company needed to only sell policies that covered the same conditions? What happened there? In most states several insurance providers left the market place and people were left with only one or two options to choose from.
Click to expand...

False equivalence, ISPs and Health Insurance companies operate on entirely different business philosophies. Health Insurance Companies only stand to profit if everyone on their plan stays healthy, ISPs only stay profitable if they can provide a better service than competitors. However seeing as over 2/3's of American households only have access to one ISP all they need to do is throttle any aspiring small ISPs from even attempting to take potential customers away from them.

Lutherf said:
Net neutrality will work the same way. The incentives to compete for market share will disappear and the result will be less innovation, less options at the consumer level and higher costs.
Click to expand...

Complete and utterly fabricated nonsense. ISPs have been given even more Investment since the Internet was protected as a Title II https://arstechnica.com/information...-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/


Lutherf said:
I know that a lot of people hate Capitalism
Click to expand...

Anyone who supports the repeal of Net Neutrality hates Capitalism. Are you completely okay with ISPs deciding which businesses can provide services and goods based on if they can afford to stay in the fast lane?

Lutherf said:
because involves accepting risk and the potential for undesirable results but it also allows for competition to come in and find solutions to those undesirable results. Those solutions are something we used to call "progress".
Click to expand...

You won't get any progress. I hope you do not have a business that relies on being on the same playing field as Netflix, Amazon, Uber, Airbnb, etc. Because once them, and ISP provided services are the only ones who can afford to be provided to consumers, those increased prices will be pushed onto the consumers. Are you okay with deregulation that protects only big ISPs. ISPs that do not have to compete with over 2/3rds of American Households?
 
CMPancake said:
No, that isn't even a remotely accurate representation of events over the past decade. It wasn't until 2014 when an FCC chairman wanted to introduce the "fast lane/slow lane" concept which would go against Net Neutrality. (Not to mention several times when companies like Comcast and Verizon were throttling websites' access until they paid a ransom to continue doing the same business as before.) If it wasn't for the Title II protections, ISPs would be able to charge you extra to access sites like this, or media that doesn't benefit them directly.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what happened. From 1990 until 2010 there was virtually no infringement of net neutrality in the US. Then the democrats started to talk about making it a law/FCC rule and the corporations heard all the commotion and realized that they could screw people
 
 
Dragonfly said:
What is net neutrality and how could it affect you? - BBC News

Is the video above a pretty decent, short version, explanation of what net neutrality is/does?
Click to expand...

That's pretty much it.

Exactly like the internet functioned until the FCC seized control 2 years ago.

How is this any different from the rest of the world?

Every time I order anything online, I am offered the choice to have the item ship slowly at the standard charge or quickly at an up-charge.

Fed Ex and UPS both offer faster shipping at an increased price.

I don't understand the whole question in this.

Increased payment provides increased service.

Isn't that the model of free enterprise?
 
Dragonfly said:
What is net neutrality and how could it affect you? - BBC News

Is the video above a pretty decent, short version, explanation of what net neutrality is/does?
Click to expand...


It does. But right now many Republicans don't care because they believe that they won't be effected by the loss of net Neutrality. They fail to realize that many people won't simply switch ISPs if hypothetically RUshlimbaugh dot com or Foxnews dot come was blocked. The republicans won't care until online donations to republican candidates get blocked or that they can't their message out on the internet effectively because some leftwing loonies decided to pressure some of the biggest ISPs into blocking conservative sites because of alleged hate speech.
 
code1211 said:
That's pretty much it.

Exactly like the internet functioned until the FCC seized control 2 years ago.

How is this any different from the rest of the world?

Every time I order anything online, I am offered the choice to have the item ship slowly at the standard charge or quickly at an up-charge.

Fed Ex and UPS both offer faster shipping at an increased price.

I don't understand the whole question in this.

Increased payment provides increased service.

Isn't that the model of free enterprise?
Click to expand...

But You are already paying for faster service with your ISP. Last I checked ISPs generally have slow speed,somewhat slow speed ,Ok speed,fast speed and super fast speed.Some might have slow,medium and fast speed. If you pay for slow you expect to be slow no matter what website you visit. If you pay for super fast then you expect super fast speed no matter where you go unless its something on the website's end that's causing the slow down.
 
jamesrage said:
It does. But right now many Republicans don't care because they believe that they won't be effected by the loss of net Neutrality. They fail to realize that many people won't simply switch ISPs if hypothetically RUshlimbaugh dot com or Foxnews dot come was blocked. The republicans won't care until online donations to republican candidates get blocked or that they can't their message out on the internet effectively because some leftwing loonies decided to pressure some of the biggest ISPs into blocking conservative sites because of alleged hate speech.
Click to expand...

So this whole thins is just a "looney left-wing plot to rule the interwebz and subjugate the most honest, pure, and trustworthy conservatives"????
Nothing like connecting one dot to something totally invisible. :roll:
 
Dragonfly said:
So this whole thins is just a "looney left-wing plot to rule the interwebz and subjugate the most honest, pure, and trustworthy conservatives"????
Nothing like connecting one dot to something totally invisible. :roll:
Click to expand...

I never said anything about a plot. I am just stating that Republicans are basically shooting themselves in the foot by opposing Net Neutrality.
 
jamesrage said:
I never said anything about a plot. I am just stating that Republicans are basically shooting themselves in the foot by opposing Net Neutrality.
Click to expand...

Because a lot of them want to censor left wing content, just like the left wing wants to censor right wing content. Both sides think they will ultimately be the ones that come out on top of the censorship wars. Both sides are wrong.
 
jamesrage said:
But You are already paying for faster service with your ISP. Last I checked ISPs generally have slow speed,somewhat slow speed ,Ok speed,fast speed and super fast speed.Some might have slow,medium and fast speed. If you pay for slow you expect to be slow no matter what website you visit. If you pay for super fast then you expect super fast speed no matter where you go unless its something on the website's end that's causing the slow down.
Click to expand...

Comcast used to put up commercials touting their faster speeds.

They compared themselves to AT&T saying that they had more of whatever it is that provides more speed.

Of course, AT&T said about the same thing. In my little world, I had Comcast and I have AT&T. Like everything else, both are vastly improved over their quality and capabilities of even 5 years ago. For me, they are indistinguishable.

For that matter, the internet of 2014 and the internet of the Net Neutrality days were indistinguishable to me. Did you see a difference?

Both AT&T and Comcast today beat the crap out of AOL dial up. ALL are communication miracles WAY beyond my understanding.

The point is it costs money to do things and use stuff.

Why should enhanced versions of anything be enhanced at no cost to the purchasers?
 
code1211 said:
Why should enhanced versions of anything be enhanced at no cost to the purchasers?
Click to expand...

I don't think you actually pay your internet bill or looked at the bill(maybe you hand your wife the money and she handles the management of the finances). Because as an ISP customer you are paying for a certain speed. The ISPs don't just have one speed setting that applies to all customers.There is generally slow speed, somewhat slow speed,Ok speed,fast speed and super fast speed. Slow speed is the cheapest and super fast speed is the most expensive. SO when you are paying for super slow speed then you are expecting super slow speed and if you are paying for super fast speed then you are expecting super fast speed unless its on the website's end that is causing the slowdown.And from what I understand the website pays a web hoster who then pays their ISP for superfast download and upload speeds(If I am wrong on this part then I am sure someone will correct me).No one is paying for 60 mbps a second and expecting a 120 mbps.
 
Cephus said:
Because a lot of them want to censor left wing content, just like the left wing wants to censor right wing content. Both sides think they will ultimately be the ones that come out on top of the censorship wars. Both sides are wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree with that.But I think the left wing will be more successful at it. Because the same people who pressure advertiser to leave certain Fox news shows will pressure ISPs to block or slow down conservative websites and republican campaign sites.
 
jamesrage said:
I agree with that.But I think the left wing will be more successful at it. Because the same people who pressure advertiser to leave certain Fox news shows will pressure ISPs to block or slow down conservative websites and republican campaign sites.
Click to expand...

We're already seeing that with Google. They're the ones who want to take offensive things "off the page". It's not censorship or anything... except it is.
 
jamesrage said:
I don't think you actually pay your internet bill or looked at the bill(maybe you hand your wife the money and she handles the management of the finances). Because as an ISP customer you are paying for a certain speed. The ISPs don't just have one speed setting that applies to all customers.There is generally slow speed, somewhat slow speed,Ok speed,fast speed and super fast speed. Slow speed is the cheapest and super fast speed is the most expensive. SO when you are paying for super slow speed then you are expecting super slow speed and if you are paying for super fast speed then you are expecting super fast speed unless its on the website's end that is causing the slowdown.And from what I understand the website pays a web hoster who then pays their ISP for superfast download and upload speeds(If I am wrong on this part then I am sure someone will correct me).No one is paying for 60 mbps a second and expecting a 120 mbps.
Click to expand...

I purchased a "bundle" including TV and internet.

If there was a discussion regarding the relative speeds and that they were planning to screw me, I missed it. The speed I have is fine for me. My needs are not extreme.

I pay my own bills.
 
code1211 said:
I purchased a "bundle" including TV and internet.

If there was a discussion regarding the relative speeds and that they were planning to screw me, I missed it. The speed I have is fine for me. My needs are not extreme.

I pay my own bills.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure you expect that speed that you are paying for no matter what website you are visiting.You don't want to pay extra for the same speed that you are already for just to access certain websites or to have your ISP itself block those websites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom