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

Here is an interesting focus from EFF

www.eff.org...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Indigo5

It's a point of faith that even if government regulations would protect the internet, it's still bad.

It's a point of faith that because a certain individual supports a concept, it's therefore questionable.

Do you find the number of folks who operate on blind faith surprising, Indigo?

Sadly, I don't anymore.

Faith, by it's nature is what we choose to believe absent facts and evidence.

When facts and evidence are present, but discarded to maintain "faith", that is no longer faith, but denial or ignorance.

I do have faith, but I reserve it for clearly unanswered questions.

To engage in denial, to embrace unfounded beliefs where facts and evidence are plentiful, abases the important things in my life that actually demand faith.

On opinions I adhere to Daniel Moynihan's classic quote..
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts

I have little patience for people that choose to support or oppose some issue simply because Ted Cruz or Pres. Obama supports or opposes it.

That kind of thinking does erode my "faith" in this country.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Bearack

HBO is providing content which they paid for.

Internet Service Providers are utilizing a resource (the internet) that the public invested in and helped create; they didn't build this.

Platitudes about the imaginary "free market" notwithstanding, the concept of net neutrality actually protects the investment of those smaller companies by preventing unbalanced intervention into the market by a megacorp like Comcast.

What power is being given to the government now that you're upset about? Be specific.

They built the infrastructure to support the piping to the consumer. Century link has spent billions to be competitive in this market alone as Comcast broadband service is antiquated technology. It's going the way of the dodo when it comes to copper coaxial.

The power given to the government would be that a private company could not (or at least be required like a utility to get government approval of any rate hike) price their broadband according to the amount of usage. Netflix and Youtube use a huge proportion of the broadband currently. A great majority than most. They also pay a premium to ensure those pipes remain open and fluid to their customers as again, they are sapping the great majority of the broadband as it is today for carriers such as Comcast.

All this legislation does is create more oversight and regulation which as anyone knows is then dictated through lobbyist so in essence, your providing the huge companies such as Google a better portal for monopoly through legislative means which in the end, hurts the small guy.

a reply to: Bearack
I believe you are comparing apples and oranges. This is about ACCESS, who gets it, and who gets it the fastest, the highest bidder.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Here is an interesting focus from EFF

www.eff.org...

Glad to see you researching!

The article you found is a technical deep dive into the tactics that have and can be employed absent Net Neutrality. For example it discusses the Netflix scandal where Verizon strangled the access of it's users to Netflix, but denied it publicly, until Netflix paid them a ransom. As an adjunct to that case, see benevolent heretics chart in this thread showing the Verizon "Strangle".

It's publicly available and just one instance..and what we will see a rush of in the near future absent Net Neutrality.

Again...for those coming "up to speed"

Your internet connection speed does not matter if your internet provider is permitted to massively slow down access to, "strangle", any site you (and all of the Internet Providers customers) visit..until that site pays them what they demand.

a reply to: Bearack

No, that's the thing.

Netflix isn't using a lot of bandwidth. Comcast customers are using a lot of bandwidth to get TO Netflix. I pay Comcast for access to Netflix, now Netflix has to pay Comcast and Verizon to keep the lane open.

Could you imagine having private roads and every shop owner having to pay for the privilege of getting customers.

a reply to: Bearack

So a small company like Centurylink would have its billions-of-dollars investment protected from the depredations of a corporate giant like Comcast with it's outdated inferior technology? I don't see the downside for the American consumer (or Centurylink, for that matter); seems like that's a boon to the free market (limiting the power of a monopoly-seeking business).

So you are against the government insuring a level playing field for providers both large and small? Comcast agreed to deliver a service and now they should be subsidized (by an anti-neutrality law) or allowed to break their contract because another company used ingenuity and innovation to make a profit? Are you sure you're "free market" in your approach?

More general platitudes about regulation without dealing with any specifics.

Not to mention, I'm very leery of any thing that follows "which as anyone knows" frankly because if everyone does know it, it doesn't ordinarily need to be said.

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Cabin

No one wants new regulations...

And that's why you want the government to ask the FCC to pile on regulations...ok then.

No one is piling on any new regulations just to reenforce the ones that already exist.

.......yet.

No there is no yet the only yet that exists is the one that exists in the minds of the people that don't understand net neutrality. Cruz wants to male it so big ISP providers can make more money and even keep out new competition from even getting a foothold in the business.

a reply to: Indigo5

I agree with about 99% of your statements completely.

I think we also use "faith," probably technically misusing it, in the sense of "trusting that future actions will follow a pre-determined pattern." For example, on the interstate everyday, I have to have a certain amount of "faith" that my fellow drivers will obey the rules of the road.

But that kind of faith is based on our experience of real-world observable circumstances that have predictable effects.

Thanks for making me think, Indigo!

Sorry if this has been posted, but didn't see it in about 15 pages of the thread that I did read.

For those of you that are still confused, here is a graphical representation:

Net Neutrality

Remember, Ted Cruz is only railing against this because Comcast is telling him to. He accepted stacks of money from them for his campaigns and they have bought his voice on this issue.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Indigo5

I think we also use "faith," probably technically misusing it, in the sense of "trusting that future actions will follow a pre-determined pattern." For example, on the interstate everyday, I have to have a certain amount of "faith" that my fellow drivers will obey the rules of the road.

But that kind of faith is based on our experience of real-world observable circumstances that have predictable effects.

Thanks for making me think, Indigo!

I understand the technical use of the word faith and lack-there-of in this scenario of regulations, but the broad, reaching and undefined hypotheticals that are being offered by those opposed to Net Neutrality are fundamentally undermined by reality, facts and logic when objectively examined.

The hyperbole of categorizing the internet as a utility resulting in censorship?

(a) Defining it as a utility means there is no mechanism for censorship.
(b) In cases like cable television (subscription based) there is no censorship...it's why you can order porn at lunchtime.
(c) In cases where consumers don't pay for access (public airwaves) censorship requires exhausting legal standards that must survive SCOTUS challenges to the first amendment and even then often fail. But again...even this doesn't remotely apply to internet as a "Utility".

So in order for the fear mongering claim of "Censorship" to hold in this scenario...

the First Amendment would need to be overturned and the entire legal distinction of a "Utility" re-written and SCOTUS would need to back it, along with Congress and the White House.

Put another way...Why not just fear monger that the First Amendment will be abolished and leave Net Neutrality out of it, because that would need to precede the premise.

On the claim that somehow classifying it as a utility would interfere with access speed "speed of government"..

again that is fundamentally flawed logic...there is no technological component of government involved in the FCC defining the internet as a Utility. It is simply a definition that gives the government the authority to enforce abstract business model/accounting procedures on Internet Providers...

aka...you may not intentionally slow access speeds at the point of access to a website to demand money from each and every website you choose to. This also seems plain and fair business practices, since they are already collecting egregious profits from internet users (subscribers) for "lightening fast speeds"...without the caveat that only applies with websites who pay them ransom.

If it was remotely a "fair" business practice then Verizon and others wouldn't be publicly denying when they are doing it (Ex. Netflix vs. Verizon)

After pondering it i think the owners stance is correct and measures need to be taken to protect the internet but when it gets broken down to a bill that treats every packet the same is just too far reaching at this time. I think smaller bites in the same direction could work without shocking the system. The main problem is the copper lines out there have become ancient and need to be glass. A system that is mainly fiber would do away with much trouble but these old copper companies have been subsidized over the yrs to replace with glass but they pocket the money and put into action the need for such companies lke l3 and other big pipe providers. Until we have the physical infrastructure to treat all packets the same any bill suggesting that will just be used to further control the power the owner has over his site. I see it more as a control means rather than a price solution. The whole tiered system described would be replaced with a more eaqual for all system if phone and cable companies had fiber to everycross connect they own and fiber to the majority of homes and business but they just keep rollin in the profits and now seek further control.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: WhiteAlice

who said anything about limiting things to one continent.

Sure the Internet is world wide. When did I say it wasn't?

In recent years U.S. policy makers have pushed back against calls from nations including China and Russia for the U.N. and ITU to have a greater role in overseeing the structure of the Web. U.S. officials have previously argued that such an arrangement would lead to the repression of free speech and the Balkanization of the Internet.

online.wsj.com...

First off, I'm going to observe that what you posted in response to me was actually a strawman. As I said in my post, "net neutrality" is not a global legislation matter even though it could have global effects. Let's say that ATS, because of its popularity, gets a "suggestion" to upgrade its speed and its connectivity is throttled by one of the giant corporations (as in the case of Netflix). If it's based in the US, that means slower connections to ATS for US users and, due to distance, quite possibly even slower connections from those who use the site overseas. I also never said that you didn't say it wasn't global, which is strawman #2.

To respond to what you're talking about, which has nothing to do with net neutrality. The concerns in regards to the US' control over the internet are actually very much related to the Snowden leaks a bit back. Europe and Asia along with several other countries have basically reconsidered the US dominance in some aspects of the internet to basically offset the risk of spying. Ceding the oversight of the web domain manager basically is a peace offering in that regard. All that does really is take the numbers that are the actual addresses of the various sites on the net and assign them domains.

Both China and Russia are, of course, going to be screaming the loudest because of our history with both in terms of ism conflict. Both countries have been cited as having significant issues with censorship and really, the interference between countries goes both ways. A few years back, Google went to China with its mission of a "free and open internet" and ran into a bit of trouble with the government at first for not blocking certain websites emanating within China on request. Then, when Google agreed to censor in China to stay in business there, they caught flak from people stateside. Overall, Google actually failed in China and represented only a small portion of the search market when it eventually backed out (it still is in Hong Kong though).

There are many international issues in regards to the internet and where there will be squabbling. The internet actually poses a legal nightmare as its users are global in nature. What might be illegal in one country won't be in another. Civil actions for libel are tricky, if not impossible. Cyberstalking between users of different countries is another one and then, of course, there is copyright infringement issues from country to country. At some point, these things are going to have to somewhat get settled out but again, that has zero to do with net neutrality.

I don't normally respond to strawmen but I think that you both have an interest in learning about the issues with the internet and are willing to take the time to learn a bit and in that sense, I responded. Try to keep your posts on subject please to avoid thread derailment though for the sake of actual discourse involving net neutrality.

It's unfortunate that the word government is the end all be all for some peoples thought process. They say "Da gubermentz ars bad!" with out considering the alternative.

The corporate oligarchs can lay out their horrible plan that ONLY makes the internet worse, you can evaluate the pros and cons and realize there is no Pros to anti net neutrality side, and none of that matters because DA GUBERMENZ! are automatically worse by default.

Backdoor monopolies, tiered speed, businesses going down, censorship fine! give me all of it, just no gubermenz!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kill the internet as we know it! just no gubermaaaannnzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!!!! Take away my favorite sites that feed me information I can't get from mainstream sources, JUST NO GOBERMANZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CORPERATIONS CAN SCREW ME OVER, BUT NO GOBERMANZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!

The fact that the side with the plan to slow down much of the net can say "we don't want internet the speed of the government" and people will accept it, says everything you need to know about their critical thinking.

Slowing down the internet is preventing it from running the speeds of the government? yea ok!

a reply to: mahatche

What's really too bad is that so many people don't realize that we are the government. Why is it being taken over by Corporations? Because we are voting the Corporatists into power time and time again. Instead, they want to be lazy or deflect blame and say things like, "Our votes don't matter" when the evidence to the contrary is enormous.

Really? Your votes don't matter? Then why do Corporations spend -billions- of dollars on BOTH major parties to influence elections? Yeah, that's right. These "people" fund both sides. You want your vote to matter? Vote for someone that doesn't take Corporate contributions. They're out there. I vote for them every time.

I don't like either road our government has laid out for us regarding the Internet, but one of the two things is GOING to happen. Either we are going to get tiered, or we are going to get reclassified. Just like my big problem with the current "Tax and Regulate Weed" crowd, I don't want it taxed or regulated. I want it descheduled, but I will settle for a tax and regulate, because at least then I'm not going to jail for having any on me.

I don't -want- the People to have to be involved, but The People have to make sure that the Corporations aren't going to screw everything up.

Bottom line i see is that this is about price and speed. The cost of placing operating and maintaining these lines are just pennies on the dollar for these providers. They fail to invest in new updated lines and pocket the cash. Now the feds want to play it off like they need to control all aspects of what travels the lines and they claim they need to based on money. So the corps. squeeze the little guy more and more until they gain more and more control of content and have the little guy begging for fed. help but the fed just wants control and has no intrest in seeing the lines updated.

The concept of having to slow down a fiber connection based on cost is false because they are earning 10 times over cost and they work the spreadsheets to hide that. They are spinning an infrastructure problem into a content problem. Copper is the true problem and not the need for more regulation. Both sides are working for the same goals money and control.

a reply to: Cabin

And this administration has over and over and over outright lied to us, and here they are ON VIDEO stating HOW they lie to us in order to FOOL us "for our own good", LAUGHING at YOU, the American people, and you want to believe that this idea is good? Holy Jesus you guys are suckers.

I'm no fan of the Republicans, but the Dems are out right stating they are collectivists. You don't see people flocking TO Korea, or China, or Cuba, or Mexico. What do you NOT understand? People all over the globe are fleeing to America to GET AWAY FROM COLLECTIVISM (socialism, communism, etc, pick your flavor) BECAUSE IT HAS DESTROYED THEIR COUNTRY and 'we' are RUSHING to make the US JUST LIKE THE PLACES FROM WHICH THEY ARE FLEEING.

You have won. I hope you really enjoy your dystopia. Just remember when your children are living in 200 square foot micro-apartments barely able to feed themselves and working for Der Staat, YOU asked and voted for it.

The pathological fear that some people have when the word "Government" is mentioned is shocking, sometimes I wonder how these people can function in the real world.