It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Epic Stupid: Ted Cruz - "Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet"

page: 10
140
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Now you're just throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks. Or you just really have no goddamn clue how anything works.




posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Now you're just throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks. Or you just really have no goddamn clue how anything works.


Yeah, I'm that stupid.

YAY government!

Rah
Rah



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Neo96, I think you have it backwards. Right now, the internet is relatively fair as ISPs tend to not throttle traffic to most websites. However, the major ISPs have been claimed to have throttled websites already for a variety of purposes. Both Comcast and Verizon have been claimed to have been throttling access of its customers to Netflix, which, of course, both companies deny. The Netflix case is actually precisely where much of the controversy is emanating so this matters.

Couple of stories about the Netflix throttling question:
news.yahoo.com...

consumerist.com...

In both instances, Netflix ended up forking over money to both Comcast and Verizon to get a "direct connection" to the ISPs in order to improve the site's speeds. That's right--Netflix, as a content provider, ended up paying to have a fast lane on the internet. The interesting thing is that, if you look at the second link above, those speeds were just fine previously and then declined. Funny how something works well for a time but needs a few extra bucks to get it going again, isn't it?

Story on Netflix having to fork over money for faster speeds: money.cnn.com...

So, very basically, this has opened the door to ISPs charging or even throttling access to content providers (like this site) and granting them better speeds for those websites' users by having the content providers essentially pay more money for a more "direct connection". That's the "fast lane". The "slow lane"? Those are content providers that probably can't afford to pay for that quicker connection and there are far more of those on the internet than the ones that can. The moment you open your browser and type in an address to anywhere, you're basically accessing a content provider. That's how widescale this is as it effects the entire internet.

It's important to understand that we all share the bandwidth that exists on the internet and it's not infinite. Before these things occurred, a consumer could improve their speeds by paying a little bit more but the speeds of content providers (outside of location) were basically on an even keel with each other. You could have two websites running out of Seattle and both would be subject to the same speeds for their users via their ISPs (barring a few differences such as server quality, number of servers and etc). What charging content providers for better access does is basically make it so that the bandwidth that we all share can get chopped up unevenly for those willing or able to pay. If it were a pie, instead of it being divided evenly to all content providers across the board...if you pay more, you can get a bigger slice of the pie and that takes away pie from everybody else.

Net neutrality essentially puts internet access as being in the same context of telephone service as a public utility. In other words, no single phone number in the US has the ability to trump others in terms of connectivity and usability. That's why, when there has been some sort of disaster, the news always advises to avoid using the phones unless absolutely necessary. A stock brokerage can't pay to have better telephone access than a residential customer because the stock broker and the residential customer's access to the communication device is considered to be equally necessary. What if, however, telephone companies could sell more access to telephone service based on how much a service provider is willing to pay? That could've made a scenario where Goldman Sachs could have more telephone connectivity than even 911 because god knows, they'd be able to pay for it.

Verizon was already on the offensive in regards to net neutrality, btw. This is a lot of potential future big bucks for them as a company as net neutrality basically deprives them of the opportunity to divvy up their piece of the pie to the biggest buyers (content provider). This case actually struck down provisions that would assure equal and open access to the internet via the Open Internet Order of 2010.

Here's a copy of that case and ruling: www.scribd.com...

That's where Title II of the 1934 act comes in. Title II basically equated telecommunications providers as being a common carrier of a basic service and, ergo, subject to regulation to assure that all had equal access to that basic service. Broadband providers were for a long while, considered to be more of an information service, or enhanced service, and not a basic service. At the time, that made sense as the usage of the internet was sporadic. However, what about now? Is it still an information service or are people using it as a telecommunication service?

Facebook, forums, skype, MSN, even game related chat programs like Steam and a whole lot more embody much of the use that people have on the internet today as a telecommunication service. In fact, when my best friend wants to come over, she doesn't call me--she sends me a message online. I honestly think that in and of itself points to the internet service providers being more of a telecommunications service today and subject to Title II than an enhanced information service provider. The reason why they don't want Title II distinctions is that that means that they are subject to more oversight and cannot discriminate against content providers. It'd disallow the pay for a more direct route.

That's the gist of it. I think, lol. I'm just a few notches up from an end user so SO can probably correct me on a few points as a content provider himself.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: Aazadan
Net Neutrality in it's purest form could be written on one sheet of paper, with no restrictions on content, only on how data can be processed.

There's part of the broader problem.

For the near-future, we only have two legislative choices being presented. The FCC's modification to existing legislation/regulation to define tiered systems, or reclassification as a Title II utility.

There are only a few barely-heard voices (none in the government) offering a third new Internet classification as the better option -- which it is.


Almost all legal experts agree that the hybrid plan of modifying existing regulation to define tiered systems will not survive legal scrutiny or court challenges and would be ever changing as technology changes. It would be a mess.

Classifying it as a utility though affords for a minimalistic and very simply approach. Treat it like water and electricity with a simple restriction on how providers operate and profit....which would be the same as they operate (at a ridiculously high profit) now.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer
I found this on net nutrality and understanding it. I hope it helps. I myself need to know more before I pass any judgment. One thing I will say is that Cruz is a politician and they are stupid by nature.www.nytimes.com...



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
I agree with Cruz - the Internet should not run at the speed of Government. It should run several steps ahead of it.



Brilliant line with Cruz....and his philosophy intact and in context. This guy could end up being teleported/telecommed into the White house, and Sarah giving out the French fries. My choice of best Mod.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Or you're suffering from paranoid delusions.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

There is a contingent of libertarians who are against net neutrality on the grounds that it works to regulate internet companies. But, these people are granted monopolies over telephone service. Before net neutrality is taken away, you have to also take away telecoms ability to dramatically overcharge people for substandard service because of sweet-heart deals they have with government agencies.

Instead of pushing for net neutrality people should advocate to disallow the corporate favoritism (which is a main component of fascism to a large degree) that make net neutrality to be wanted in the first place.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Or you're suffering from paranoid delusions.



How classy of you.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Indigo5



And the IRS is impartial and doesn't look at political bias.

And the Justice Department is impartial and doesn't look at political bias.

*I'm going to go plant a Rainbow tree and see if I can grow a unicorn!*


No offense...but you seem to be willfully ignorant? WTF?

UTILITIES...THERE IS NO MECHANISM UNDER THE FCC'S CLASIFICATION OF INTERNET AS A UTILITY TO PROHIBIT OR LIMIT CONTENT.

YOU ARE CONFUSING IT WITH BROADCASTING. AND WITH BROADCASTING...A WHOLE DIFFERENT ANIMAL THAN UTILITIES, THEY ARE SEVERLY LIMITED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND COURTS AS TO WHAT THEY CAN LIMIT.

www.fcc.gov...
edit on 10-11-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Or you're suffering from paranoid delusions.


No. I just don't trust the government, but like I previously stated, I'm obviously an idiot for having doubts and concerns.

So apologies.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Indigo5



And the IRS is impartial and doesn't look at political bias.

And the Justice Department is impartial and doesn't look at political bias.

*I'm going to go plant a Rainbow tree and see if I can grow a unicorn!*


No offense...but you seem to be willfully ignorant? WTF?

UTILITIES...THERE IS NO MECHANISM UNDER THE FCC'S CLASIFICATION OF INTERNET AS A UTILITY TO PROHIBIT OR LIMIT CONTENT.

YOU ARE CONFUSING IT WITH BROADCASTING. AND WITH BROADCASTING...A WHOLE DIFFERENT ANIMAL THAN UTILITIES, THEY ARE SEVERLY LIMITED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND COURTS AS TO WHAT THEY CAN LIMIT.

www.fcc.gov...


No.

You're right.

I'm an idiot.

YAY government!

*woot*
*woot*



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Smart meters are just for electricity and they don't monitor usage either.

YAY!



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

And the reason for this is because the big telecoms want to continue to control cable which Netflix is a direct rival to via streaming which happens over the Internet.

Now, cable is a public (read government) utility which is a virtual monopoly controlled by the big telecoms who gauge you to death to have cable packages larded down with crap you don't need and never watch just for a handful of channel you might watch. They refuse to go a la carte because the telecom model DOES NOT allow it.

Enter streaming and services like Netflix where you can pay a low fee and watch what you want to. People are abandoning cable TV for those services and the big telecoms are losing out except for their monthly cable fee. So they look for ways to gauge their customers to make up for it.

If the government steps in and makes the Internet a public utility like they did cable TV, how long do you think it will be before we have to pay for the same kinds of package deals we know pay our cable bills for and services like Netflix and the freedom to watch what we want are dead and gone and we are all paying the same $150+/month for the privilege of our entertainment and wondering what the hell happened? Oh, and it will be to the same big telecoms, and the poor people will be in the same boat they are today?



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

Nope.

Don't have it 'backwards' just operating from a different defintion than the prevailing opinions in the thread.

The concept of 'net neutrailty' I was under the assumption was government hands off of the net.

That is not what others want.

What they want to do is mock a guy who said something in response to the executive branch's version of 'net neutraiity' meaning changing the net to utilities, then gets to tax and regulate the hell out of it.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Or you're suffering from paranoid delusions.


No. I just don't trust the government, but like I previously stated, I'm obviously an idiot for having doubts and concerns.

So apologies.


You are not an idiot for "having doubts and concerns"..that is healthy, even more so when our government is involved.

You are an "an idiot" for ideologically insulating those doubts and concerns from reality, evidence and facts that are readily available by the ton.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Indigo5

Smart meters are just for electricity and they don't monitor usage either.

YAY!


WHAT? You are just saying stuff...

You want to debate smart meters? Some government device to hear your thoughts?

You don't think Comcast et al is monitoring your usage??? And Google knows more about you than your mom.

The FCC classifying the internet as a utility doesn't give them access or oversight of content.

It simply allows them to slap down IPs that hold up websites for ransom.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Or you're suffering from paranoid delusions.


No. I just don't trust the government, but like I previously stated, I'm obviously an idiot for having doubts and concerns.

So apologies.


You are not an idiot for "having doubts and concerns"..that is healthy, even more so when our government is involved.

You are an "an idiot" for ideologically insulating those doubts and concerns from reality, evidence and facts that are readily available by the ton.


Gee, thanks for the clarification!

But before I get beaten down any further, if government is going to be in charge of freeing the internet through regulation, who is on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Communications, Technology, and the Internet?


Ted Cruz.

You're being played.

But I'm the idiot.

lolz



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Indigo5

Smart meters are just for electricity and they don't monitor usage either.

YAY!


WHAT? You are just saying stuff...

You want to debate smart meters? Some government device to hear your thoughts?

You don't think Comcast et al is monitoring your usage??? And Google knows more about you than your mom.

The FCC classifying the internet as a utility doesn't give them access or oversight of content.

It simply allows them to slap down IPs that hold up websites for ransom.


Now you're talking crazier than the voices in my head.

I already said you win.

I lose.

You're right.

I'm wrong.

YAY government!



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

We're screwed

Yes, but this is well beyond conservative v's democrat, imo

If the propaganda behemoth manage to manipulate and convince the ignorant majority of this "insane idea of net neutrality" and the Patriot Act part II (internet for Patriots aka internet for dummies) is implemented AND then they ratify the Transpacific Partnership - then we are ALL well and truly screwed, internet and beyond.

We're being hit from all sides - the internet is the last battleground for freedom from oppression, freedom of expression, both now and in the future and both red and blue are in on the deal - always have been.

Again, my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
140
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join