The (flawed) reasoning behind Net Neutrality, explained

[Nyvin]

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

As with everything else you post about, its obvious you have no real knowledge about the FCC.

Big money, will out.

Pay more and get less, cuz its the Great Republican Way, right sonny boy?

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

Since Obama is behind this, if it is repealed. The media and the Obama fluffers on here will scream racism.

You idiot.

President Obama is not "behind" net neutrality and its damn lame of you to play the race card.

Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet.

Me stating the truth is not using the race card.

Did someone just say

"Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet." Out loud?

Forgive me for saying so, but wasn't the internet already equal? There are gay sites, black sites, Muslim sites, Jewish sites, Christian sites, Democratic sites, Republican sites, this that or the other sites on the internet. There was nothing to suggest that it was unequal to begin with.

/facepalm

It "is" equal now...all sites get the same bandwidth speed. If net neutrality loses and the ISPs get their way then it won't be equal for all innovators since the ISPs can charge money to speed up your website.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

This was the governments attempt to fix a problem that doesn't even exist.

It was thee FCC's grab at remaining relevant and therefore maintaining a seat at the tax payer dollar trough. It is also obie's way of making sure only the right message gets out there for thee rubes to soak up.

Uh, you need to educate yourself.

Net neutrality is the OPPOSITE of what you say.

You should also research who controls the FCC.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This was the governments attempt to fix a problem that doesn't even exist.

That's because the providers hadn't made their move yet.

You people have no common sense. The internet providers oppose net neutrality because it stands in the way of their squeezing more money out of you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The (flawed) reasoning behind Net Neutrality, explained"

No, it's the stupidity of the OP and those who agree with him exhibited.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This was the governments attempt to fix a problem that doesn't even exist.

That's because the providers hadn't made their move yet.

You people have no common sense. The internet providers oppose net neutrality because it stands in the way of their squeezing more money out of you.

They have no common sense because most adhere blindly to failed conservative dogma, failed dogma that perceives net neutrality as some sort of 'disincentive.'

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Nothing says freedom like control and regulation

 

[Nyvin]

Nothing says freedom like control and regulation

It will be regulated one way or another, it's just a matter of how. I can guarantee you are not one of the 0.01% of Americans who will be negatively impacted by net neutrality.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Nothing says freedom like control and regulation

It will be regulated one way or another, it's just a matter of how. I can guarantee you are not one of the 0.01% of Americans who will be negatively impacted by net neutrality.

I should believe you, why? Too much was hidden before they voted....hmmmm sounds like Obunglescare, eh?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I can grant you that it won't. Because both cases covered Title II as well. Cable companies are not "telecommunications" providers as it were. Meaning that Title II still does not apply to cable companies who provide broadband internet service via their cable transmission. My interpretation is that the word "telecommunication" implies there is a type of communication being carried out between provider and end user via their services, the problem here is, that (I think) your internet service nor your cable service are not in and of themselves a means of "telecommunication." They are simply services being provided in exchange for payment.

Even by its own act, the FCC exempted Broadband internet providers from Title II regulations, leaving open the possibility that they would nonetheless regulate their services in the future. Thus, Title II is still not an adequate legal cover.

Then how can cable providers offer telephone service?

Because if I recall, all TV, internet, and telephone services a cable company provides (as of now) share the same cable connection, hence "bundles." If you are piggybacking telephone and broadband internet on one cable transmission, that leads me to believe the cable company, as it is so called, can be exempted from Title II, because that qualifies as a single transmission of a service or services, not a transmission of three different services via three different types of transmissions. The only way they could be regulated under Title II is if the services were distinguishably offered separately from one another, as previously stated.

I'm playing devils advocate here, I mostly agree with you. But this argument doesn't hold water, my home phone and my DSL are carried over the same line, I pay the providers separately, I could use VOIP over my DSL but I can't have the DSL without the phone line.

Well, those are two different providers using the same line to provide two separate services though. Meaning that since you are paying for two different services, the exemption won't apply to them. When the same company is providing all the services via the same line, that is one transmission, not two or three providers transmitting three different services.

My argument is that it is the number of entities transmitting their services to you, the end user, is key in whether they are regulated under Title II or not. Charter, in my case is one entity transmitting three different services on the same line, the key here once again, is that there is only one entity providing those services, not three. Meaning that such could be construed as being able to exempt them from Title II.

Nothing would change if I used my phone provider for DSL, I don't because they are more expensive. It wouldn't change the fact that the phone company is primarily a phone provider, just like Comcast is primarily a Cable TV provider which is regulated.

OKTexas

You would be correct. But even still, if you are only one provider providing multiple services, then at least one (i.e. the internet) or all of these services should be exempt from regulation. It leads me to postulate that this is why they bundle services for one fee, instead of three services for three different fees. Because it attempts to slip past FCC regulations, including Title II. In my argument, delivery is key. While you are still a phone provider or a cable provider by title, if you provide more than one service (phone, internet,cable or any variation) how does that not exempt you from these regulations? AT&T has long been known as a phone company, but now they provide cable and internet.

I sense that there was a lot of maneuvering going on, majorly to do with, get this, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which influenced a ton of mergers between telcom companies. It was supposed to encourage competition, but because it was so slowly implemented it allowed for people like AT&T and TCI to merge, MCI and Worldcom, so on and so forth to allow some access in the local exchange infrastructure. Simply put, in my opinion, that rendered Title II ineffective.

If a phone company chooses to provide cable service, the phone company itself would face regulation, but would have to abide by FCC open video systems regulations. Therefore, if a cable company decides to both provide internet and phone service, it would face less regulation itself, but has the choice of following FCC telephone and TV regulations and not Title II regulations, as the FCC classified broadband services as an "information service" in 2007.

So, if you look at what a broadband connection as used by Cable Companies is by definition, Tex, it is able to carry multiple types of signals all at once. Technically the term "broadband connection" encompasses all three types of services at once, thusly by the FCC's own definition, it could be classified an "information service" and not under the purview of Title II.

I'm sorry it took so long to respond, I had to do some research on both the 1934 and 1996 acts to buttress my argument.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

This was the governments attempt to fix a problem that doesn't even exist.

It was thee FCC's grab at remaining relevant and therefore maintaining a seat at the tax payer dollar trough. It is also obie's way of making sure only the right message gets out there for thee rubes to soak up.

Uh, you need to educate yourself.

Net neutrality is the OPPOSITE of what you say.

You should also research who controls the FCC.

When has the government ever taken over any aspect of life and it's gotten more free and cheaper? Fucking ever.

How can you be so fucking stupid as to think government regulation is going to make the internet better than it is?

 

[BluesLegend]

Net neutrality = tax revenue mark my words.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

As with everything else you post about, its obvious you have no real knowledge about the FCC.

Big money, will out.

Pay more and get less, cuz its the Great Republican Way, right sonny boy?

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

Since Obama is behind this, if it is repealed. The media and the Obama fluffers on here will scream racism.

You idiot.

President Obama is not "behind" net neutrality and its damn lame of you to play the race card.

Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet.

Me stating the truth is not using the race card.

Did someone just say

"Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet." Out loud?

Forgive me for saying so, but wasn't the internet already equal? There are gay sites, black sites, Muslim sites, Jewish sites, Christian sites, Democratic sites, Republican sites, this that or the other sites on the internet. There was nothing to suggest that it was unequal to begin with.

/facepalm

It "is" equal now...all sites get the same bandwidth speed. If net neutrality loses and the ISPs get their way then it won't be equal for all innovators since the ISPs can charge money to speed up your website.

So why do you think you need to apply your "level playing field" socialist crap to the internet? Thus, you attribute internet speeds to wealth, and that must be regulated and redistributed. So, why must those of us who have high speeds, be required to have slower speeds for the sake of those who can't afford higher speeds?

What part of that makes sense to you?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

As with everything else you post about, its obvious you have no real knowledge about the FCC.

Big money, will out.

Pay more and get less, cuz its the Great Republican Way, right sonny boy?

Since Obama is behind this, if it is repealed. The media and the Obama fluffers on here will scream racism.

You idiot.

President Obama is not "behind" net neutrality and its damn lame of you to play the race card.

Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet.

Me stating the truth is not using the race card.

Did someone just say

"Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet." Out loud?

Forgive me for saying so, but wasn't the internet already equal? There are gay sites, black sites, Muslim sites, Jewish sites, Christian sites, Democratic sites, Republican sites, this that or the other sites on the internet. There was nothing to suggest that it was unequal to begin with.

/facepalm

It "is" equal now...all sites get the same bandwidth speed. If net neutrality loses and the ISPs get their way then it won't be equal for all innovators since the ISPs can charge money to speed up your website.

So why do you think you need to apply your "level playing field" socialist crap to the internet? Thus, you attribute internet speeds to wealth, and that must be regulated and redistributed. So, why must those of us who have high speeds, be required to have slower speeds for the sake of those who can't afford higher speeds?

What part of that makes sense to you?

Relativism precludes objective reason, thus 'sense' is axiomatically rinsed from the Relativist equation.

 

[Nyvin]

Nothing says freedom like control and regulation

It will be regulated one way or another, it's just a matter of how. I can guarantee you are not one of the 0.01% of Americans who will be negatively impacted by net neutrality.

I should believe you, why? Too much was hidden before they voted....hmmmm sounds like Obunglescare, eh?

Your electricity? Public Utility

Your water? Most likely Public Utility

That bridge you cross on the road everyday? Public Utility

City Sewage? Public Utility

Airports? Mostly Public Utility

Gee....are you negatively impacted by any of these?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nothing says freedom like control and regulation

It will be regulated one way or another, it's just a matter of how. I can guarantee you are not one of the 0.01% of Americans who will be negatively impacted by net neutrality.

I should believe you, why? Too much was hidden before they voted....hmmmm sounds like Obunglescare, eh?

Your electricity? Public Utility

Your water? Most likely Public Utility

That bridge you cross on the road everyday? Public Utility

City Sewage? Public Utility

Airports? Mostly Public Utility

Gee....are you negatively impacted by any of these?

According to you, that contributes to global warming. So, yes, according to you, it does negatively affect her, since, because of that premise, all of those things are now regulated by the government.

Sucks to be you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nothing says freedom like control and regulation

It will be regulated one way or another, it's just a matter of how. I can guarantee you are not one of the 0.01% of Americans who will be negatively impacted by net neutrality.

I should believe you, why? Too much was hidden before they voted....hmmmm sounds like Obunglescare, eh?

Your electricity? Public Utility

Your water? Most likely Public Utility

That bridge you cross on the road everyday? Public Utility

City Sewage? Public Utility

Airports? Mostly Public Utility

Gee....are you negatively impacted by any of these?

So... WHAT?

 

[OKTexas]

Then how can cable providers offer telephone service?

Because if I recall, all TV, internet, and telephone services a cable company provides (as of now) share the same cable connection, hence "bundles." If you are piggybacking telephone and broadband internet on one cable transmission, that leads me to believe the cable company, as it is so called, can be exempted from Title II, because that qualifies as a single transmission of a service or services, not a transmission of three different services via three different types of transmissions. The only way they could be regulated under Title II is if the services were distinguishably offered separately from one another, as previously stated.

I'm playing devils advocate here, I mostly agree with you. But this argument doesn't hold water, my home phone and my DSL are carried over the same line, I pay the providers separately, I could use VOIP over my DSL but I can't have the DSL without the phone line.

Well, those are two different providers using the same line to provide two separate services though. Meaning that since you are paying for two different services, the exemption won't apply to them. When the same company is providing all the services via the same line, that is one transmission, not two or three providers transmitting three different services.

My argument is that it is the number of entities transmitting their services to you, the end user, is key in whether they are regulated under Title II or not. Charter, in my case is one entity transmitting three different services on the same line, the key here once again, is that there is only one entity providing those services, not three. Meaning that such could be construed as being able to exempt them from Title II.

Nothing would change if I used my phone provider for DSL, I don't because they are more expensive. It wouldn't change the fact that the phone company is primarily a phone provider, just like Comcast is primarily a Cable TV provider which is regulated.

OKTexas

You would be correct. But even still, if you are only one provider providing multiple services, then at least one (i.e. the internet) or all of these services should be exempt from regulation. It leads me to postulate that this is why they bundle services for one fee, instead of three services for three different fees. Because it attempts to slip past FCC regulations, including Title II. In my argument, delivery is key. While you are still a phone provider or a cable provider by title, if you provide more than one service (phone, internet,cable or any variation) how does that not exempt you from these regulations? AT&T has long been known as a phone company, but now they provide cable and internet.

I sense that there was a lot of maneuvering going on, majorly to do with, get this, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which influenced a ton of mergers between telcom companies. It was supposed to encourage competition, but because it was so slowly implemented it allowed for people like AT&T and TCI to merge, MCI and Worldcom, so on and so forth to allow some access in the local exchange infrastructure. Simply put, in my opinion, that rendered Title II ineffective.

If a phone company chooses to provide cable service, the phone company itself would face regulation, but would have to abide by FCC open video systems regulations. Therefore, if a cable company decides to both provide internet and phone service, it would face less regulation itself, but has the choice of following FCC telephone and TV regulations and not Title II regulations, as the FCC classified broadband services as an "information service" in 2007.

So, if you look at what a broadband connection as used by Cable Companies is by definition, Tex, it is able to carry multiple types of signals all at once. Technically the term "broadband connection" encompasses all three types of services at once, thusly by the FCC's own definition, it could be classified an "information service" and not under the purview of Title II.

I'm sorry it took so long to respond, I had to do some research on both the 1934 and 1996 acts to buttress my argument.

Unfortunately it boils down to a couple of scenarios, the courts decide one way or the other or congress gets involved and we know the commie in the WH will have none of that. As usual it's wait and see.

 

[Nyvin]

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

As with everything else you post about, its obvious you have no real knowledge about the FCC.

Big money, will out.

Pay more and get less, cuz its the Great Republican Way, right sonny boy?

Since Obama is behind this, if it is repealed. The media and the Obama fluffers on here will scream racism.

You idiot.

President Obama is not "behind" net neutrality and its damn lame of you to play the race card.

Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet.

Me stating the truth is not using the race card.

Did someone just say

"Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet." Out loud?

Forgive me for saying so, but wasn't the internet already equal? There are gay sites, black sites, Muslim sites, Jewish sites, Christian sites, Democratic sites, Republican sites, this that or the other sites on the internet. There was nothing to suggest that it was unequal to begin with.

/facepalm

It "is" equal now...all sites get the same bandwidth speed. If net neutrality loses and the ISPs get their way then it won't be equal for all innovators since the ISPs can charge money to speed up your website.

So why do you think you need to apply your "level playing field" socialist crap to the internet? Thus, you attribute internet speeds to wealth, and that must be regulated and redistributed. So, why must those of us who have high speeds, be required to have slower speeds for the sake of those who can't afford higher speeds?

What part of that makes sense to you?

Oh my god dude, get a clue....

It's not the viewers that purchase/get higher speeds....it's the businesses or people who "produce" the content who would've had to pay the ISPs to have them send out their data to people at higher speeds.

Net neutrality also prevents ISPs from blocking (legal) content on the internet...so that anyone who wants to access anything anywhere can access it. It stops them from packaging bundles of selective company's data and ignoring all the rest.

The playing field is level as it is...right now, net neutrality supports the status quo, it's not a change. "Stopping" net neutrality would be the change. You are utterly confused.

 

[OKTexas]

As with everything else you post about, its obvious you have no real knowledge about the FCC.

Big money, will out.

Pay more and get less, cuz its the Great Republican Way, right sonny boy?



You idiot.

President Obama is not "behind" net neutrality and its damn lame of you to play the race card.

Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet.

Me stating the truth is not using the race card.

Did someone just say

"Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet." Out loud?

Forgive me for saying so, but wasn't the internet already equal? There are gay sites, black sites, Muslim sites, Jewish sites, Christian sites, Democratic sites, Republican sites, this that or the other sites on the internet. There was nothing to suggest that it was unequal to begin with.

/facepalm

It "is" equal now...all sites get the same bandwidth speed. If net neutrality loses and the ISPs get their way then it won't be equal for all innovators since the ISPs can charge money to speed up your website.

So why do you think you need to apply your "level playing field" socialist crap to the internet? Thus, you attribute internet speeds to wealth, and that must be regulated and redistributed. So, why must those of us who have high speeds, be required to have slower speeds for the sake of those who can't afford higher speeds?

What part of that makes sense to you?

Oh my god dude, get a clue....

It's not the viewers that purchase/get higher speeds....it's the businesses or people who "produce" the content who would've had to pay the ISPs to have them send out their data to people at higher speeds.

Net neutrality also prevents ISPs from blocking (legal) content on the internet...so that anyone who wants to access anything anywhere can access it. It stops them from packaging bundles of selective company's data and ignoring all the rest.

The playing field is level as it is...right now, net neutrality supports the status quo, it's not a change. "Stopping" net neutrality would be the change. You are utterly confused.

Are you sure, have you actually seen the new rules?

 

[rdean]

Everyone should have equal access to the Internet. The speed shouldn't be bought or sold. Making it equal across the board actually makes business more competitive.