• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

F.C.C. Announces Plan to Repeal Net Neutrality

Well, if it lets them block some of the sicker porn sites online, I at least appreciate THAT part of it. Have you ever LOOKED at that stuff? OMG!! Every time I check it out it gets worse and worse and WORSE. Why, just last night....




im kidding!!

Captain Adverse has lit fire to my good humor this morning.

Captain who???
 
Well, first, that is a pretty big ****ing distinction to end your point on. :lol:

Second, it is no different than joining Amazon and having Amazon choose where they source the merchandise you buy from and what they will make available to their customers... or Sears, or Best Buy, or... etc. Do you scream at Books-a-million because not carrying your favorite Manga is a 1st Amendment violation?

False equivalence.

We are talking about Internet Service Providers, it is a service not a product, they do not own the internet they only provide access to it as a service. ISP's have no right to block parts of the internet to customers, no more than phone companies have a right to block you from talking to certain people. In order to do that the FCC would have to reclassify it as a title 1 service.
 
HAHAH!! Well, first it is funny as hell to see you arguing State rights over Federal rights. Second, removal of federal regulation has ****-all to do with state rights.

Not sure why you find that funny.

The federal regulation actually will prevent states from exercising their own net neutrality laws, so if you've ever found yourself arguing in favor of state rights then you'll probably have a problem with this. Unless, that is, you favor the dismantling of net neutrality for reasons completely unrelated to state rights, private rights or who it benefits. You ignored my other question. You said you prefer private rights over government rights. In this situation, which private rights are you referring to?
 
Net neutrality refers to discriminating between content providers. Not packages for internet speeds. If you pay 45$ for DSL, no net neutrality means you can then be charged additional or that companies like Netflix will be extorted to pay more to get their services to customers. The fact that you're trying to argue that people should be able to pay 45$ for reduced access to internet and conflating that with service is just more of the bull**** Pai is trying to sell to people. Watching you try to argue that progress on development of connection speeds is somehow linked/slowed/restrained by net neutrality when the past 30 years proves you wrong? Funny as hell. Go back to playing Dylann Roof's psychiatrist.

You can't separate bandwidth and access when speaking about the ISPs. The whole point of any of this is managing traffic and costs.

Also, if you pay $45 for DSL chances are you won't be doing much with NetFlix. You need 2mbps minimum for even 480p. 720p is pushing even the most pricey DSL, and 1080p is impossible.

And no, I am nopt arguing that people SHOULD go to DSL, I am being facetious. My point is that the kind of guarantees the the pro-NN people seem to expect simply don't exist, and a great many different pricing and access schemes are being developed to provide the end user the access to whatt hey want on the internet at a price that most can pay. NN scuttles the vast majority of those potential schemes and the supporterss on NN don't even realize they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
 
Lot's of Captain's here now but I believe I was the first. I have seniority.

Many try to emulate. But there is only one TRUE Captain here.

Carry on.

 
Although it's not "net neutrality" in and of itself because it's a platform and not an isp, Facebook exercises on a platform level what you can expect on a provider level. On Facebook, the extent to which you are able to reach your followers is strangled, meaning you're only able to reach a tiny fraction of them at a time. This is a problem if you're using Facebook to reach your followers to promote your business. However, Facebook allows you to reach a greater (but not total) number of followers if you pay a fee. That's internet non-neutrality in practice, and that will be the model of the internet in the future.

Now, if you don't have a business website, you won't care about customers reaching you so you won't notice that. You will, however, very much notice when an internet connection has been slowed to a crawl for a website that didn't pay for the fast lane, and you'll likely grow bored or frustrated with that site and not return to it. And of course, that's assuming there isn't an entirely separate package for accessing that website in the first place.

View attachment 67225187

OK, but is this a bandwidth issue, a human behavior issue or a NN issue being illustrated here in the cartoon?

From my read, it's seems to be a human behavior issue.

So, right! Let's get on that! Let's pass regulations for what? Human behavior?

Why is it that there are so people on Facebook?
Why is it wrong for Facebook to expect fair, market based remuneration for making use of their platform for commercial purposes?
Didn't they invest a lot of money, time, and effort, sweat equity, to bring their platform to the level it is presently at?
Shouldn't they reap the rewards for these investments they've made? They did take the risk, didn't they?
 
OK, but is this a bandwidth issue, a human behavior issue or a NN issue being illustrated here in the cartoon?

It's the business model that will define the future of the internet.

From my read, it's seems to be a human behavior issue.

No.

Why is it that there are so people on Facebook? Why is it wrong for Facebook to expect fair, market based remuneration for making use of their platform for commercial purposes? Didn't they invest a lot of money, time, and effort, sweat equity, to bring their platform to the level it is presently at? Shouldn't they reap the rewards for these investments they've made? They did take the risk, didn't they?

It's the business model you can expect from the internet as a whole now. If you see the Facebook situation and think, "I would like my isp to do to me what Facebook is doing to its users" then you will be happy.
 
LOL, no. The pro-NN folks have you and your fellow travelers all twisted around regarding what has driven innovation in the internet market. Wired is selling your snake oil to get you to support federal regulation. Their fever dream of how the dystopian future without NN is only missing spiky shoulder pads and dune buggies. The internet will continue to function the way the internet functioned for all but the last two years. A new start up will pay X amount of money for a business level internet access to a local ISP for bandwidth they expect to use, and the ISP, and the broker for their customer, will continue to represent their customer and their customer routing access to the rest of the ISP and trunk world as always. The limiter in this dystopian future would come from big meany ISPs telling their customer they have to pay a bazillion dollars for a service that only sends them to Brony and Teletubby pages and they will like it or it's another month in the salt mines.

So you are against federal regulations right? Screw our liberties on the internet because you believed all that crap that the ISP's spoon fed you. The sky didnt fall since net neutrality was put into place. The government isnt controlling the internet. Those federal regulations are keeping the ISP's from stealing our liberty and putting behind paywalls.

But you do not care about any of that, to you its just another us vs them crap line identity politics. Oh and thanks for the stupid story that was entirely meaningless dribble.
 
Well the problem there is the lack of liberty for them poor folks. There is no people like what you described, perhaps you might only go to certain sites mainly, but sometimes you need to go to other sites. And you can by internet from ISP's that provide different bandwidths.

https://www.xfinity.com/learn/offer...al&gclid=CLGb9Zjw0tcCFU-VxQId8-AN0A&gclsrc=ds

You can pick the plan for your needs or budget. You are not forced to buy the fastest internet on the market and there is no reason to block content as it stands. In other words your argument is false and has nothing to do with reality.

LOL. Sure, you can pay for "different bandwidths", but you aren't actually using it. If I had a dime for every nitwit who buys 100mbps internet and then just watches Netflix with it I'd be a rich man. The ONLY reason for such high bandwidths is for fast data downloads of very large files, and the large majority of internet users don't download huge data. Hell, most of the rest of the world who has NN style controls still limit the number of GB a person can download per month... but ZOMG freespeech or whatever.

"I have 100mbps internet! Why is PUBG LAGGY!!" ... and so on.

The problem is that many of these same people think they are IT experts because they read a frigging article on Wired. :roll:
 
You provided two opinion pieces. Most of the internet seems to disagree with you though. So hey, I guess the opinions behind me win.



Oh boy, voodoo economics. I think we're done.

Okay. But FYI, dismissing another person's argument without making a counter argument will pretty much lose a person the debate every single time. When a media fails to inform its gullible audience with all the pros and cons of government action, it's pretty easy to fool a lot of gullible people.
 
You can't separate bandwidth and access when speaking about the ISPs. The whole point of any of this is managing traffic and costs.

Also, if you pay $45 for DSL chances are you won't be doing much with NetFlix. You need 2mbps minimum for even 480p. 720p is pushing even the most pricey DSL, and 1080p is impossible.

And no, I am nopt arguing that people SHOULD go to DSL, I am being facetious. My point is that the kind of guarantees the the pro-NN people seem to expect simply don't exist, and a great many different pricing and access schemes are being developed to provide the end user the access to whatt hey want on the internet at a price that most can pay. NN scuttles the vast majority of those potential schemes and the supporterss on NN don't even realize they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

No one wants reduced internet access except for idiots.
 
I know what consumers think NN will do to help them, isn't always seen as the same thing in the telecom eyes. They will still make the best deals possible for their companies. Case in point, more mergers and acquisitions, and content consolidation happened during NN than ever before!

"During NN?"

The internet has always worked this way.
 
You can't separate bandwidth and access when speaking about the ISPs. The whole point of any of this is managing traffic and costs.

Also, if you pay $45 for DSL chances are you won't be doing much with NetFlix. You need 2mbps minimum for even 480p. 720p is pushing even the most pricey DSL, and 1080p is impossible.

And no, I am nopt arguing that people SHOULD go to DSL, I am being facetious. My point is that the kind of guarantees the the pro-NN people seem to expect simply don't exist, and a great many different pricing and access schemes are being developed to provide the end user the access to whatt hey want on the internet at a price that most can pay. NN scuttles the vast majority of those potential schemes and the supporterss on NN don't even realize they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Killing Net Neutrality is not going to get us cheaper internet options. Anyone who thinks it will is delusional.

The internet is so successful because it's a free and open platform. Anyone can start up a website that might end up the next Facebook or Google. Killing net neutrality harms startups. It harms entrepreneurship. It makes it harder for the little guy to start competing. It's not really about Netflix: they're big enough already to the point where they can cough up the cash to keep their service properly streaming. But Deuceflix can't afford it, and will fail.

Only ISPs will benefit from this. Comcast. You're siding with Comcast. You're trusting Comcast with the power to cherry pick what you see or don't see. I wonder if you'll change your mind if suddenly Fox News' website mysteriously slows to a crawl, or disappears entirely, while MSNBC works just fine. All it takes is some liberal in charge of traffic policies at your ISP.
 
Last edited:
Yes I have heard that argument too. And encouraging competition is indeed the best way to improve things in a hurry. So it seems to me that the issue is encouraging competition as was the case pretty much all of Europe. Net neutrality does not do that at all and could actually provide less incentive for competition.

Oh do elaborate. How does net neutrality harm competition?
 
Was net neutrality ever actually implemented? If not then I figure everything will just be like it is now.
 
Oh do elaborate. How does net neutrality harm competition?

I've already posted several links explaining that. Just as cable companies offer various services for a fee for a select audience who wants those services, just as auto makers charge for extra equipment on their cars that only a few people want, just as many enterprises offer group or bulk rates for all sorts of things, big pharma can charge big prices to cover their expense to develop a new drug, if internet providers aren't allow to do the same thing it could have a chilling effect on those who would otherwise have incentive to get into the business.
 
So you are against federal regulations right? Screw our liberties on the internet because you believed all that crap that the ISP's spoon fed you. The sky didnt fall since net neutrality was put into place. The government isnt controlling the internet. Those federal regulations are keeping the ISP's from stealing our liberty and putting behind paywalls.

But you do not care about any of that, to you its just another us vs them crap line identity politics. Oh and thanks for the stupid story that was entirely meaningless dribble.

No, I am not against federal regulations. That dumb argument falls in the "If you don't support the estate tax you want America to be anarchy like Somalia!" category. I support federal regulations where they make sense and have the best chance of actually helping resolve an issue rather than exacerbate issues.

NN is no such regulation.

You want to protect from predatory ISPs? Then promote the expansion of competition in the ISP markets. I am not in support of ISPs, most charge way more than the service they provide warrants. But most can because they hold a monopoly is many regions of the country to this day. A streamer I used to love watching has finally quit streaming because there is only one ISP in his region, and his 5mbps bandwidth has become only 1mbps, and they claim there is nothing they can do, and that the 5mbps is a "burst" guarantee, not meant to support streaming... so he is screwed.

That doesn't get fixed with NN. NOTHING gets fixed with NN. All it does is make a bunch of people feel like they dodge a bullet that was never actually coming... and on the back end make it harder to actually manage traffic on the internet.

We are a few years away from a major revolution in how everyone accesses the internet. 5G will literally change everything. Stop breaking the internet model trying to protect against an eventuality that technology is already ensuring won't happen.
 
False equivalence.

We are talking about Internet Service Providers, it is a service not a product, they do not own the internet they only provide access to it as a service. ISP's have no right to block parts of the internet to customers, no more than phone companies have a right to block you from talking to certain people. In order to do that the FCC would have to reclassify it as a title 1 service.

Yes, I realize we are talking about "Internet Service Providers". Amazon is also a service, not a product.


more-you-know.jpg
 
Was net neutrality ever actually implemented? If not then I figure everything will just be like it is now.

You guys have got to be trolling. There's no other possible explanation.
 
Was net neutrality ever actually implemented? If not then I figure everything will just be like it is now.

Yes two years ago in June 2015. And it only exacerbated the difficulty of anybody competing with the big boys. I don't believe there have been any new internet providers starting up business since it went into effect. Net Neutrality is certainly not the only problem but it is a factor as is all sorts of onerous government regulation that fails to address anti trust violations, etc. President Trump's people are wisely pushing back on these huge communications mergers creating mega entities powerful enough to squash any competition, but much more deregulation and much more incentives for competition needs to happen. I figure he knows that and they are probably looking at it and working on it.
 
This is utter garbage and total, unbridled greed.

The courts need to rule already on the internet and freedom of speech. The FCC's new plan is creating a multi-tiered speech system based on what you can pay for and it's not right. Why don't we just make a Chinese-style firewall run by the government? This is essentially what it is, but it's a money-based version instead.

Our country has been completely hijacked by corporations. It has never been more clear. "Freedom", as long a you can pay for it.
 
No, I am not against federal regulations. That dumb argument falls in the "If you don't support the estate tax you want America to be anarchy like Somalia!" category. I support federal regulations where they make sense and have the best chance of actually helping resolve an issue rather than exacerbate issues.

NN is no such regulation.

You want to protect from predatory ISPs? Then promote the expansion of competition in the ISP markets. I am not in support of ISPs, most charge way more than the service they provide warrants. But most can because they hold a monopoly is many regions of the country to this day. A streamer I used to love watching has finally quit streaming because there is only one ISP in his region, and his 5mbps bandwidth has become only 1mbps, and they claim there is nothing they can do, and that the 5mbps is a "burst" guarantee, not meant to support streaming... so he is screwed.

That doesn't get fixed with NN. NOTHING gets fixed with NN. All it does is make a bunch of people feel like they dodge a bullet that was never actually coming... and on the back end make it harder to actually manage traffic on the internet.

We are a few years away from a major revolution in how everyone accesses the internet. 5G will literally change everything. Stop breaking the internet model trying to protect against an eventuality that technology is already ensuring won't happen.

Bravo. You are saying what I have been saying but you are saying it better than I did.
 
Back
Top Bottom