So why does Team Zero want to make it a utility ?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Net Neutrality
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
So why does Team Zero want to make it a utility ?
To be able to tax it.
Net neutrality is exactly as CTB has described it.
Y'all know CTB and I have opposing viewpoints on just about everything. On this matter, I agree with him 100%.
Net neutrality rules are meant to keep the Internet service providers from setting up "tiers". Think carefully about this: if there are tiers, then those who can afford it will get the best Internet access. Those that can't, will get whatever the ISP allows them.
It's already happening with your cellphone plans. Go over your 3 gigabyte data limit, get an extra $10 tacked on your monthly bill. Want more data each month? Pay more. Want unlimited data? Well, you can't get that any more.
THE PROBLEM is that the FCC chairman is currently one of the corporate shills who was deeply in bed with those companies who want the tiered plans. His proposals are somewhere in between what the corporations want, and the "free internet, best possible speed for everyone" crowd.
Compare our Internet with other countries; the U.S. has one of the poorer reputations for providing Internet to its citizens.
The only government regulation I personally support is the government keeping the ISPs from instituting tiered plans; and perhaps requiring that ISPs spend a percentage of their profits on continual upgrades.
Y'all know CTB and I have opposing viewpoints on just about everything. On this matter, I agree with him 100%.
Net neutrality rules are meant to keep the Internet service providers from setting up "tiers". Think carefully about this: if there are tiers, then those who can afford it will get the best Internet access. Those that can't, will get whatever the ISP allows them.
It's already happening with your cellphone plans. Go over your 3 gigabyte data limit, get an extra $10 tacked on your monthly bill. Want more data each month? Pay more. Want unlimited data? Well, you can't get that any more.
THE PROBLEM is that the FCC chairman is currently one of the corporate shills who was deeply in bed with those companies who want the tiered plans. His proposals are somewhere in between what the corporations want, and the "free internet, best possible speed for everyone" crowd.
Compare our Internet with other countries; the U.S. has one of the poorer reputations for providing Internet to its citizens.
The only government regulation I personally support is the government keeping the ISPs from instituting tiered plans; and perhaps requiring that ISPs spend a percentage of their profits on continual upgrades.
A good article explaining how 'Net neutrality' would become the new 'Fairness doctrine.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmi...ck-on-free-speech-so-why-is-comcast-for-it/2/
EXCERPT
If the First Amendment protects anything, it prevents the government from silencing speech, as the Bill of Rights was written and ratified as restrictions on the government, not the people. The FCC’s regulations by definition would begin to strangle the marketplace for Internet speech; as a result, it’s disingenuous to suggest net neutrality promotes the widest dissemination of all forms of speech.
Also, if the FCC could wield net neutrality, it would subject Internet access to Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Title II outlines how the FCC can grant licenses for the broadcast spectrum; the terms of broadcast licenses; the process of renewing broadcast licenses; restrictions on over-the-air reception devices, and much more. By giving the FCC the power to control Internet service providers with licenses (and the renewal of these licenses pursuant to how much bureaucrats like or dislike them) all ISPs would be under the thumb of the FCC. This would also apply a vague rule preventing “discrimination,” which was designed to manage radio’s limited number of stations on the dial, to also control Internet access and searches. Put another way, under net neutrality regulations, the FCC could establish rules on “reasonable” network management practices and the FCC would get to define what is “reasonable.”
By letting the government micro-manage how ISPs run their networks, government regulators could fine Yahoo, for example, if a search for “net neutrality” turned up more negative than positive opinions. But how would Yahoo label which opinion is pro and which is con? To do so, they’d have to decide that CNN is Democratic-leaning and FOX News is Republican-leaning and so on for every Website, as rating every article would be impossible. Or maybe the government, after lawsuits had been filed, would be happy to do it for them. Okay, then we would have an official government list of friends and foes—depending which party is in power. This would inevitably lead to censorship. Without much speculation it’s easy to see how net neutrality results in a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmi...ck-on-free-speech-so-why-is-comcast-for-it/2/
EXCERPT
If the First Amendment protects anything, it prevents the government from silencing speech, as the Bill of Rights was written and ratified as restrictions on the government, not the people. The FCC’s regulations by definition would begin to strangle the marketplace for Internet speech; as a result, it’s disingenuous to suggest net neutrality promotes the widest dissemination of all forms of speech.
Also, if the FCC could wield net neutrality, it would subject Internet access to Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Title II outlines how the FCC can grant licenses for the broadcast spectrum; the terms of broadcast licenses; the process of renewing broadcast licenses; restrictions on over-the-air reception devices, and much more. By giving the FCC the power to control Internet service providers with licenses (and the renewal of these licenses pursuant to how much bureaucrats like or dislike them) all ISPs would be under the thumb of the FCC. This would also apply a vague rule preventing “discrimination,” which was designed to manage radio’s limited number of stations on the dial, to also control Internet access and searches. Put another way, under net neutrality regulations, the FCC could establish rules on “reasonable” network management practices and the FCC would get to define what is “reasonable.”
By letting the government micro-manage how ISPs run their networks, government regulators could fine Yahoo, for example, if a search for “net neutrality” turned up more negative than positive opinions. But how would Yahoo label which opinion is pro and which is con? To do so, they’d have to decide that CNN is Democratic-leaning and FOX News is Republican-leaning and so on for every Website, as rating every article would be impossible. Or maybe the government, after lawsuits had been filed, would be happy to do it for them. Okay, then we would have an official government list of friends and foes—depending which party is in power. This would inevitably lead to censorship. Without much speculation it’s easy to see how net neutrality results in a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.
That's right it is about controlling the message.
Exactly (as in, I understand what you're getting at, and hope you understand in return).
Looks like we are on the same page.
That is correct. Verizon, Comcast, etc. and lots of other companies have been funding Republican politicians. These companies do not want net neutrality. They want to be able to charge extra for downloading movies, books, etc. They also want to be able to set up what in regular transportation are called toll roads, extra charges.
This has nothing to do with government taking over. It has nothing to do with regulating messages. It has everything to do with freedom, all traffic equal.
There are so many on this BB arguing against net neutrality. I do not believe they will be happy when their messages, searches, etc. are restricted to free back roads with bad service.
So do you support Obama making it a utility or not ?
A utility works for everyone. Verizon, Comcast, etc. works for their own good, not your nor mine. As Netflex stated:
If you want to pay more for less service, then oppose him and net neutrality. But it will cost you and I don't think you will like it. I want the internet provided to do just that provide and not have the right to decide when I have to pay more and what services I used to be relegated to backwater channels.
Last edited by a moderator:
You already said the net IS neutral and should stay that way.
Now you want to change it into a utility, tax it, and trust that the government will be fair arbiters of our rights on it.
I'm right, so far ?
Now you want to change it into a utility, tax it, and trust that the government will be fair arbiters of our rights on it.
I'm right, so far ?
Of course Netflix is for net neutrality. Their service gobbles up bandwidth which slows down connection speeds for everyone else. They don't want Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast to charge them more to use gobs of their infrastructure because then Netflix would have to pass along price increases to their customers. Result? Customers would likely drop Netflix.
Right now we:
Pay more to go faster or have less congestion on tollways than on interstates.
Pay more to drive in high occupancy vehicle lanes so we can go faster.
Pay more to have faster download speed for internet (dial-up vs. cable vs. fiber optic)
Pay more to have eyeglasses made in an hour rather than wait for a week to get them.
Pay more to have stuff delivered next day air rather than regular ground.
Pay more for better seats at entertainment venues.
This is called capitalism. Supply and demand. If Obama wants to come along and tell everybody that they will be happy with 10 Mbps download speeds in the name of net neutrality, no thank you.
But if Obama wants to mandate that everybody will have access to minimum speeds of say, 50 Mbps, then I'm listening.
If you want to stream movies over a wireless connection you're going to need a solid, unwavering 10-12 Mbps connection. Even then you will get the dreaded "Buffering" icon interrupting your movie.
If Obama's idea of net neutrality is implemented I fear it will result in content providers like Netflix, Vudu, Hulu, and others being saddled with slow to average connection speeds meaning their content will be unwatchable.
The problem is if we expect companies to lay down new fiber optic cables so we can have super high speed internet access they are going to need to charge customers for that privilege. There is no free lunch.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are completely wrong so far.
It is probably more likely that a tax will be put on the Internet if it is no longer net neutral. A number of states have been pushing to be allowed to charge a sales tax for anything you buy over the Internet. Making the Internet not net neutral probably would bring this into a standard practice. Until now purchases online have not been charged a sales tax. So, do you want that to happen? Can you imagine the nightmare this will cause companies trying to keep up with tax laws and regulations from 50 states?
The FCC is going to make some type of ruling. If they make the net not net neutral then you will pay more to companies for less services. Do you want that.
No, if it becomes a utility, only then is it open to being taxed.
Probably ? Based on what ?
Yup. You want to fix a problem that doesn't exist, by creating regulation that you promise will not regulate.
The FCC will make a ruling against Obama wanting net neutrality ? Are you serious ?
See, y'all are pointing out exactly the problem with net neutrality.
If we leave it to the corporations, they'll revoke "neutrality" and charge based on what speed you want.
If we leave it to the government, they'll *have* to implement utility taxes in order to provide the infrastructure and technology necessary to provide the Internet speed and capability to make us competitive with other countries.
We can't rely on the government to take it over; and we don't (or shouldn't) want the ISPs to be free to do it their way.
Rock and a hard place.
If we leave it to the corporations, they'll revoke "neutrality" and charge based on what speed you want.
If we leave it to the government, they'll *have* to implement utility taxes in order to provide the infrastructure and technology necessary to provide the Internet speed and capability to make us competitive with other countries.
We can't rely on the government to take it over; and we don't (or shouldn't) want the ISPs to be free to do it their way.
Rock and a hard place.
It is you that is completely wrong here.
This many people this completely clueless. First time ever CTB is completely right and is not trolling at all. One for the history books. Don is right as well. But, can't expect a bunch of people who sold their souls to the GOP to be able to see the truth. "Obama said Net Neutrality so we have to be against it."
Obama can only be trusted for one thing, to do whatever it takes to advance his agenda.
That is the beginning and the end of the story.
If the government has any control over the internet, censorship will soon follow.
Control the message. A complicit media is essential to making radical changes for the worse without most people even realizing it.
That is the beginning and the end of the story.
If the government has any control over the internet, censorship will soon follow.
Control the message. A complicit media is essential to making radical changes for the worse without most people even realizing it.
Last edited by a moderator: