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

I can't really know if it is a good or bad thing yet as it will take much wading to get to the heart but i can say it is cool to see such spirit from the overlord here. Perhaps he is right but either way that spirit is what it takes to make change but it must be harnessed well to get desired results. Something tells me we are not seeing but a portion of what is happening now.

At a different angle the drone tech just may be part of future plans that tie in with more regulation. They are very close if not in action on having hovering drones relaying connections above us. I do not like that idea and can see a one world internet coming soon if it is treated as a necessity and not a paid privilage. If you link the whole world together it is just a matter of time before it is controlled and transformed into becoming as one. Either way the internet is destined to be controlled more and more and for sites like these to exist they will have to play ball with the controllers and that in itself goes against what i think may have been at the heart of the creation of the site.

a reply to: deadeyedick

This breakdown simplifies the issue, in a real-world scenario.

originally posted by: AshleyD
In this case, the government oversight actually seems necessary to protect internet equality.

Yes. Just like government oversight is necessary to protect other freedoms.

I'd feel very foolish if I were him.

His ignorance will be praised by those who don't know what net neutrality is, and stubbornly refuse to educate themselves.

Good to see you, Ashley!

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It's interesting to see so many that are happy with GOP oversight.

Pity I can't be that trusting.

a reply to: ketsuko

Actually, I'd say that we already have the big internet bills already. I've paid between $86 to $150 a month for telephone and internet access where the greater portion of the costs was for the latter--internet access. I'd also hazard that we already have issues with an oligopoly or even a monopoly in regards to internet services. On one hand, faster speeds have been required and that means new and improved infrastructure so it makes sense that we do pay more (my first internet was free, btw). However, the options that we have right now in terms of internet are very limited if we want a higher speed of internet access as a consumer. The options for most people in the US is one of two companies--Comcast or Verizon. That state already exists though Google Fiber is attempting to enter into the fray but who the hell trusts Google?

There are already in existence significant barriers of entry into the ISP market. The nature of the internet and how it functions is that there are large scale information superhighways. Everything you do on the internet to connect to a website essentially travels along those highways. You can see these highways by doing a tracert in Command Prompt on windows by simply typing in tracert and a web address to see how you're traveling across the country (or planet) to get to a particular website. Some of the hops in that tracert are going to be roads owned by your ISP but eventually, it's going to have to hop onto a super highway (backbone) to get somewhere outside of the local area. Who owns those Tier 1 backbones? The big guys and if they don't play well together, it means that some routes take a whole lot longer because they're having to dip down to some other area and work their way back up to the desired location. A small upstart company that wants to enter into the market themselves as a competitor is likely going to have to make a deal with those Tier 1 companies.

Who are the Tier 1 owners? Level 3 Communications, TellaSonera International, CenturyLink, Vodafone, Verizon, Sprint and AT&T. As weird as it sounds, Vodafone is also Verizon (partially). CenturyLink is Qwest. Level 3 is the backbone of choice for the DoD, Netflix, and Apple. In general, looking at the corporate histories of mergers and whatnot is enough to make one, at best, go cross eyed and at worst, feel borderline insane. If anything, these relationships could be worth their own conspiracy theory (heck, one even has the Rothchilds involved in it! Vodafone or CenturyLink--I forget). Overall, these guys have to make deals with each other so that people can go from point A to point B and who ends up paying for the fallout from those costs are typically you and I.

Considering that Netflix has been the recipient of some pretty sketchy activity because, yes, they are an incredible threat to the cable companies, I think it's worth the time to read what their CEO has to say about "net neutrality". I'm guessing it is all about the backbones and access to them based on the following snippet:

The essence of net neutrality is that ISPs such as AT&T and Comcast don't restrict, influence or otherwise meddle with the choices consumers make. The traditional form of net neutrality which was recently overturned by a Verizon lawsuit is important, but insufficient.

This weak net neutrality isn't enough to protect an open, competitive Internet; a stronger form of net neutrality is required. Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge.

blog.netflix.com...

Net nuetrality means hands off the internet.

I hope this does not become the new GOP greed stance. If we lose net nuetrality expect to see the Internet turn into cable service with tiered pricing plans. Basic sites, premium sites (would you like the streaming package? Only $9.99 extra gets you access to YouTube, Vimeo, Netflix and Hulu) if it's not that, they pass fees down to the company itself which forces them to raise their prices on everyone else.

It's awful, it's greedy, it's stupid-- why am I not surprised that the GOP is endorsing this?

Uhh Do people realize net nuetrailty means your gaming world is gonna be a piece of crap with slower speeds.Mean the internet will run slower and be junk because of Government bureaucracy will ruin it next.

The ONLY reason Ted Cruz uttered this ignorance is that Obama came out with his support for net neutrality and Ted knows his Tea Partiers will LOVE him for being against Obama, NO MATTER WHAT.

Dear Senator Ted Cruz, I'm going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY works - The Oatmeal

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

And your hope is that ATS costs will go down if the government steps in. We get that.

No one here is speaking in favor of the proposed tiered alternative to net neutrality.

It is the unforseen consequences of opening wide the door to government net regulation that has some, myself included, extremely worried. Add to that the poor track record of bureaucratic competence, and I think there is good reason to question the proposed changes.

Is there a better alternative? I think there is. Why should we accept being limited to the two options presented thus far?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: WhiteAlice

Well, then your definition of net neutrality is wrong.

I don't think so.

Think I have the right definition of neutrality.

Others have it wrong.

neu·tral·i·ty noun \nü-ˈtra-lə-tē, nyü-\ : the quality or state of not supporting either side in an argument, fight, war, etc. : the quality or state of being neutral

www.merriam-webster.com...

Clearly this is what is meant by 'neutrality' today:

www.cnet.com...

Logomachy is considered one of the most degenerate forms of debate as it chooses to fight about the definitions of words to fit a specific view and not the underpinning arguments themselves.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

And your hope is that ATS costs will go down if the government steps in. We get that.

No one here is speaking in favor of the proposed tiered alternative to net neutrality.

It is the unforseen consequences of opening wide the door to government net regulation that has some, myself included, extremely worried. Add to that the poor track record of bureaucratic competence, and I think there is good reason to question the proposed changes.

Is there a better alternative? I think there is. Why should we accept being limited to the two options presented thus far?

You've been making sound posts and using practical judgement.

I sincerely hope that more people pay attention to your posts.

I just shudder at the thought of government providing "regulation" even a GOP government.

But I surrendered.

Obviously I don't know anything.

I wish you good luck.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
And your hope is that ATS costs will go down if the government steps in. We get that.

No.

1) The costs would go up.

2) If we can't pay the costs, we'd go out of business.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
And your hope is that ATS costs will go down if the government steps in. We get that.

No.

1) The costs would go up.

2) If we can't pay the costs, we'd go out of business.

I don't understand (again)
I thought you and all the others were hoping that the government would step in to stop the rise of costs.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
And your hope is that ATS costs will go down if the government steps in. We get that.

No.

1) The costs would go up.

2) If we can't pay the costs, we'd go out of business.

I don't understand (again)
I thought you and all the others were hoping that the government would step in to stop the rise of costs.

1) They already pay a lot for a premium connection that excludes extra fees from the Big Fish (i.e. Comcast or some such ruler of the Internet SuperHighway)
2) Net Neutrality goes away, then sites like ATS will be charged new fees by the SuperHighway owners (i.e. Comcast, et al) and these new fees will determine how fast their connection travels on the backbone SuperHighway.
3) These added fees could very well kill businesses and limit the flow of information

That is my understanding from reading the thread...


ETA
The "No" was in response to the idea that Net Neutrality would decrease costs - it wouldn't - it would keep the costs from going up...

Wow!

Y'all are still at this after how many hours?

I'm going to have to go back and read the 7 pages or so that I missed...

...I'm all for net neutrality and have been busy emailing everyone about it and the reason why it matters for everyone regardless of political viewpoint or socio-economic status.

If Obama came out and said that jumping off a 100 foot cliff without any safety equipment is dangerous, Ted Cruz would come out and say that it's a lie and it's completely safe.

And the very same bobble heads would be in this thread trying to make a case why it's a safe thing to do.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
1) They already pay a lot for a premium connection that excludes extra fees from the Big Fish (i.e. Comcast or some such ruler of the Internet SuperHighway)
2) Net Neutrality goes away, then sites like ATS will be charged new fees by the SuperHighway owners (i.e. Comcast, et al) and these new fees will determine how fast their connection travels on the backbone SuperHighway.
3) These added fees could very well kill businesses and limit the flow of information

And Exxon could start charging double to hybrid drivers. But they won't because that would be bad for business.

If major ISPs were to do half the things claimed in this thread, internet service would no longer be valued as it is today. Not only would people drop ISPs, there would be a public backlash against the ISPs responsible.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

How can you drop the Big Fish? My understanding is EVERYTHING links into the SuperHighway. There is NO choice in riding that if you have a site on the internet. This has been explained.

ETA - People are not going to want to drop their usage of the Internet and companies need the SuperHighways, so its the companies that maintain sites that are going to need to 1) pay up, or 2) charge fees/greater fees to their consumers in order keep their access to quality speed/bandwidth. What "backlash" is really available here?

originally posted by: muse7
If Obama came out and said that jumping off a 100 foot cliff without any safety equipment is dangerous, Ted Cruz would come out and say that it's a lie and it's completely safe.

And the very same bobble heads would be in this thread trying to make a case why it's a safe thing to do.

And have their respective following or other accounts star them in a show of "support". Really, what needed to be said was said in the first 4 or 5 pages. The rest of this seems redundant. Maybe Skeptic should just shut it down for a while instead of this maypole of everyone repeating themselves.