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

a reply to: mal1970

Actually, on the contrary, what net neutrality assures is individualism--not collectivism. Collectivist cultures would be what you would find in China, Russia, Japan, or hell, anywhere in Asia for that matter. Collectivism does not necessarily equate to socialism or communism. Japan is a collectivist culture but is neither Communist or Socialist and it is not listed as a Socialist country at all.

So you can check for yourself: en.wikipedia.org...

Collectivism does embody a sense of working together to provide for a common good or goal. That is true. However, it has zero assurances in terms of equity of receipts from that combined effort.

Individualism is basically everyone working towards their own goals/benefits and the thought there is that the combined drive will make for a better society that is more agile and innovative. The US is actually very individualistic in that regard. If you stick a US business person in the room with a Japanese business person, the differences are pretty stark despite both being Capitalists.

PS. Feudal Japan and China were still collectivist cultures. Nuff said.

originally posted by: muse7
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.

especially now that they can't go see a doctor cause health care is more expensive for most and are being taxed every year now for just being born in the us. Our functionality is definitly being taxed and halted at every level and it grows more and more with every new gov. regulation and every profit of corps.

This government vs private industry stuff is misguided. This isn't about government vs private business it's about private business vs private business and using government regulation to get a competitive advantage. The model the ISP's want is one where they can double and triple bill, and all connections are metered to discourage use. This lets them bring in the most revenue with the fewest outgoing costs. On the other hand we have Google, Netflix, and so on trying to use this infrastructure for another model. Theirs depends on free and open internet that everyone has access to because they're offering low cost products that make money on volume rather than high margins. For consumers at the end of the day this comes down to whether the internet should be inclusive or exclusive. However things aren't going to be decided on the basis of what's best for the consumer or the market.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
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.

I think you have some misconceptions about data processing. Having fiber optics rather than copper wires would be nice but one has nothing to do with the other. In order to do what the ISP's are doing it requires more processing power as they have to look at each packet, prioritize it, and in some cases alter it. This takes more server hardware than simply processing it does. Also, we can already treat all packets the same. Maybe I can explain this if I explain speed tiers on the internet, data can only travel so fast (speed of light minus processing time). Data from a 20mb/sec and 50mb/sec connection travels at the same speed, the difference is that the 50 mb/sec connection can send more data at once. Treating packets the same doesn't mean the connection speed between everyone is the same. What it means is that an ISP can't discriminate against certain packets or alter them.

SkepticOverlord gave an example a violation of this principal that is already happening right here on ATS. Comcast takes the data packets when you load ATS and replaces the advertisements with different advertisements. For a website that depends on ad revenue I'm sure you can see how this is a problem. This is an example of not treating packets equally because some are being modified while others aren't. This ability is precisely what the ISP's are going for.

They want to be able to make it so that when you load CNN, it pulls the news stories from Fox News if Fox pays for that.

They want to make it so that your data that's part of a streaming movie or online game is processed at a slower speed than your email unless you pay for a multimedia service.

They want to make it so that a website espousing unpopular views can't advertise.

This neutrality concept isn't some hippy lets all be equal BS. Please listen to the networking experts and computer scientists on this issue. It is very important that data be processed equally because when data is treated inequal, all data becomes untrustworthy because you don't know what was and wasn't altered. Do you want to goto websites (or run one yourself) where the content on the screen, if it loads at all isn't the content the content provider intended for you to see? It's corporate run censorship at best and the death of the internet in the US at worst.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
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 far I've avoided using any partisan rhetoric or blame in my posts because this truly is not a partisan issue, despite what Ted Cruz is trying to make it. Not having Net Neutrality leads to a reduction in use of the internet which in turn lowers demand on the networks and means the ISP's don't need to spend as much on upgrading/maintaining service. Though the idea that they do that in the first place is already laughable.

If you're interested in this I have some short reading to suggest to you:
www.techdirt.com...
www.pbs.org...

The ISP's took $200 billion in government money that was intended to build us a pretty kick ass broadband network. The original provision was for a 45mb up/down line wired directly to every single home in America. The ISP's took the money, then said the government plan was impossible, refused to build it, and instead used that money to buy each other out and merge companies into our current monopoly status. Then while this was going on the government built another network out of additional money, and at the behest of lobbyists, the FTC, and Congress handed it over to those ISP's.

The ISP's owe us a $200 billion network right now and they're even sitting on enough cash that they could build it if they wanted to but no one has the power to either take the money back or make them follow through on the deal. If the issue is pressed the ISP's can shut down our financial sector and bankrupt the country overnight (a threat they have made multiple times when pressuring the FCC for favorable rulings btw).

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.

I've spent many posts here slamming the ISP's and talking up Net Neutrality but you hit on something here that I want to play Devil's Advocate on because the ISP's do actually have a point. Netflix pays for internet access to one ISP but all ISP's have to deliver their content. Netflix is a substantial user of bandwidth, I believe it uses something like 33%. Why should one company get the money for hosting them when all ISP's have to deliver that content?

The answer to this problem lies in the peering agreements that were linked a page or two back.

originally posted by: muse7
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.

The real issue for these people is that removing Net Neutrality increases regulations. Lets make an analogy to the financial sector. Glass-Steagall was two pages of legislation. Dodd-Frank which was meant to replace it is 9000 pages and then there's additional regulations beyond that. Net Neutrality if you want to think of it as a regulation is a one sentence regulation. If we repeal it and set a bunch of rules for ISP's on what/when/how they can do these things how many pages of rules do you think we're going to have? The SMALL GOVERNMENT approach is to maintain/strengthen Net Neutrality.

originally posted by: mal1970
a reply to: Cabin

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.

Yes...because keeping Net Neutrality (the way the internet is now) will result in my children living in "200 square foot micro-apartments barely able to feed themselves and working for Der Staat"...

It's hard to argue with people championing corporate ownership of the internet when they make such rational and objective arguments.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: muse7
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.

The real issue for these people is that removing Net Neutrality increases regulations. Lets make an analogy to the financial sector. Glass-Steagall was two pages of legislation. Dodd-Frank which was meant to replace it is 9000 pages and then there's additional regulations beyond that. Net Neutrality if you want to think of it as a regulation is a one sentence regulation. If we repeal it and set a bunch of rules for ISP's on what/when/how they can do these things how many pages of rules do you think we're going to have? The SMALL GOVERNMENT approach is to maintain/strengthen Net Neutrality.

You touched upon a nuance of this debate. Simply redefining the internet as a Utility, like has been proposed, is about as uncomplicated and simple a regulation as can be had....which I suspect is what prompted the Republican's fierce backlash. They would 1st...like there to be no net neutrality, but the second choice would be a massive, complex legislation that can be challenged in court and neutered or exploited to the benefit of corporations...think Tax Code. Simple and fair fixes are frightening to the dishonest.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Interventionism is the oligarch. How else would they control u if government wasn't involved. Can't have competition right?

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Interventionism is the oligarch. How else would they control u if government wasn't involved. Can't have competition right?

By guaranteeing free speech in the constitution, does the government control your speech?

"Interventionism is the oligarch"...big words paired together do not make truth or logic or in this case..any sense at all.

a reply to: Aazadan great info and fills in many blanks. Yes the tech side is where i would simply leave a hundred ft loop of cable entering the building for someone smartr than me to install the servers and such. I think what i was getting at is that if we had more fiber going to more buildings then these isp's would have more competition because we could have smaller isp's. What stops someone from starting an isp? imo it is having the equipment and the "pipes" I got a first hand look at the way the money was pocketed and equipment was not in put in place. I could be wrong but in my view the only thing stopping the little guys from having more servers is the fact they do not have big pipes in there house or building. At the least i think you may agree that a nation that has an infrastructure of fiber to every home would have less deppendence on these big carriers.

Perhaps they seen that option long ago and was another reason to not pay the plows and i t guys. From the track record of gov. i just do not see them having a solution that will not be undermined by the opposing parties. A more simple solution like upgrading the lines would give more power to the people and could be enforced easier than what is about to happen. Replacing the copper and offseting the problems you state in a manner that is less agressive than some giant bill will work better in the end. The us population will only take so much of what they are fed from either side.

thank you for the informed response

a reply to: muse7

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.

The funny thing muse is that I find it shocking that people think government is something more than a criminal organization which has been normalized by thousands of years of central planning and social conditioning.

Is it really so shocking that after all these years of oppression and hypocrisy by the state that some people refuse to accept its faux altruism, and its shallow reassurances.

Why in the blue hell should I trust an institution that has literately killed, imprisoned, and bankrupted millions with anything?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Aazadan great info and fills in many blanks. Yes the tech side is where i would simply leave a hundred ft loop of cable entering the building for someone smartr than me to install the servers and such. I think what i was getting at is that if we had more fiber going to more buildings then these isp's would have more competition because we could have smaller isp's. What stops someone from starting an isp? imo it is having the equipment and the "pipes" I got a first hand look at the way the money was pocketed and equipment was not in put in place.

What you're seeing is primarily known as the last mile connection. Sometimes it's more than a mile but the general idea is that only the last couple thousand feet of your connection are going over the copper wires strung up everywhere. Across the nation is a backbone of fiber optics. This is the network, they're the main lines that data goes over. The layout is very similar to roads. There are a couple high speed, high capacity roads that stretch across the nation, then there's some local high speed roads, those empty out to smaller primary roads, and those then branch into the side streets that we all live on.

These last mile connections are expensive but they're not the prohibitive part of making an ISP. The prohibitive part is the main lines going into each residential area. There are only a few of these going across the country and the ISP connects the local network to that larger one. In my old town for example for awhile I was entertaining the idea of starting up an ISP using whitefi. My town had 3 fiber optic lines going into it, one was given to Suddenlink the local ISP, one belonged to ORNet which handles the separate educational network, and one was dark meaning it's unused. This left an opening for someone to come in with a new technology like whitefi, lease the dark fiber, and create an ISP (provided it didn't violate the cable companies 100 year monopoly on cable internet). In the end however Suddenlink argued that they should be given the second line and the town complied. In order for another ISP to move in they would need to get another fiberoptic backbone down and connected.

The barrier to entry on being an ISP is very high because of these backbone networks, that's why they have monopoly status. The only fix to that is for us to build a new network, like we did in the early 2000's. No one wants to spend the now $800 billion that it would cost though, and that shouldn't be surprising because that's a ton of money to lay something down and then hand it over to private companies.

Smaller ISP's where they exist (and in some places they do) exist by leasing space from the larger ISP's. They don't have their own infrastructure.

Anyways, on the idea of upgrading the lines, something you may not be aware of is that a major portion of President Obama's 2009 700 billion stimulus which was to rebuild our infrastructure was going to rebuild our highways but at the same time relay our fiber network so that we could not just expand it now, but rebuild it in such a way that we could more easily expand it in the future (what's laid out currently isn't very expandable). However once Congress got their hands on it and started budgeting money, to say nothing of state governments using it to shore up budgets rather than build things most of the money was diverted from the original purpose and there was nothing left to actually fix the network issues.

a reply to: Indigo5

Hitler also was supposedly also an animal rights activist and a vegetarian. Did that make all his warring and killing people ok? I don't think so.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Indigo5

Hitler also was supposedly also an animal rights activist and a vegetarian. Did that make all his warring and killing people ok? I don't think so.

You are claiming to distrust anything George Soros is involved with. It was pointed out that George Soros likes animals. You come back with Hitler.

Stay Classy.

a reply to: Aazadan If you dig further into it then you will find that often only one or two pair are being used in those lines and that gets them classified as no longer dark even though they are often 75% open. We pay the interstate tax for these lines and we are being held hostage because of them. The lines are there i just see the potential for this to be hijacked even further.

I once held two ends of a cut fiber cable in a bucket of water and got a call asking how we got the system back up. What i was doing was connecting the majority of cell calls from dallas to houston in my hand. We have the tech to be free from this mess but i lack the knowledge to know what we should do and when you couple that with the failed systems we have it leaves not much hope. I just think more specific wording would go further to prevent the sides hijacking our needs further.

I am definitly not saying that what is proposed will not work but just that after it works it will be undermined because of the wording and that is likely written into the solution for future use. I say we take back what we paid for.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Basically there's three solutions proposed:
1. Repeal Net Neutrality. That's what the majority of this thread is about. I think I've made a good case for why we shouldn't do this but maybe not.

2. Do nothing. This is the compromise approach and is essentially what Obama is pushing for as well as the majority of people. This leaves in place all of neutrality repeals of the past few years and just says we won't go further down this road.

3. Classify as a utility. This is the approach a few people want to take. Basically it's the idea that we won't write new regulations, but rather move the internet into an already existing set of regulations. This is the closest to the idea of preserving neutrality.

In my opinion, and I think the opinion of many others the best option is to have the most concise legislation possible. Any of these outcomes results in laws and regulation but preserving neutrality results in the fewest number of new rules while limiting both government and corporate ability to control the network.

The whole problem in this thread is that some people think that #1 is the low regulation/small government approach because the Republicans support it. It's not. It's actually the big government approach that requires the most legislation. Position #1 is all about letting industry write rules as to who can use what, when they can use it, how they can use it, and who can't use it. The irony in Ted Cruz's statement is that repealing Net Neutrality would be the real Obamacare of the internet. It would result in a gigantic corporate giveaway where people are forced to pay extra for service they already had.

Interesting

1. Regulating the internet like a utility makes sense because ISPs don't actually compete
...

2. There is no evidence net neutrality will kill jobs
...

3. Net neutrality is the only way to protect the free market of the internet from monopolists like Comcast and Verizon
...

4. Net neutrality will expand liberty and free expression
...

5. Net neutrality represents the opposite of a government takeover of the internet
...

6. Classical small-government liberalism supports the idea that government should provide public utilities, like roads and internet service

Contrary to what many have stated, networks don't currently treat "all packets equally" in order to improve latency and increase bandwith, it's called Traffic Shaping.

An overly simplistic example: if you're streaming a 1GB video and your neighbor wants to load a 1MB web page, his packets are going to be prioritized over yours to clear his demand from the network, meaning he doesn't have to wait for your traffic and you don't have to be slowed down as much by his traffic (packets) being interlaced with yours. If you both want access at the same time, there's going to be waiting/slow down either way. If his traffic can be cleared from the network in 30sec while your's will take 30min, you waiting an extra 30sec is more fair than him waiting an extra 30min.

Another reason for prioritizing packets other than performance: A doctor performing remote open heart surgery should have the benefit of lower latency by being higher priority than your streaming the latest episode of House of Cards.

a reply to: AgentShillington

My point had nothing to do with being classy or not being classy. It had to do with the fact that just because someone does something philanthropic or something you might find attractive doesn't mean they are good. Rockefeller is a good example as well of giving to charity or setting up charitable funds as a tax shelter but then doing other things we might find abhorrent.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: AgentShillington

My point had nothing to do with being classy or not being classy. It had to do with the fact that just because someone does something philanthropic or something you might find attractive doesn't mean they are good. Rockefeller is a good example as well of giving to charity or setting up charitable funds as a tax shelter but then doing other things we might find abhorrent.

I'm now convinced that you are actually NOT purposely misunderstanding. You just don't seem to be able to follow logical discourse.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

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

I don't recall you saying that, I recall you telling me I didn't know what I was talking about with regard to International authorities. I then sourced my statement, now you are calling straw man argument instead. You may consider it a mere strawman, since you don't make the connection to giving away our power and sovereignty to the UN. I think it just requires seeing the bigger picture. I always look for the connection to a One World Government, since that is what TPTB want ultimately, and our President surely is no different.
Soros has been a major player for world socialism, so why shouldn't I focus on what I believe to be the real agenda?
But now for the issue of access at hand:

Politically, Net Neutrality has always been the concept that we need government to regulate the way ISPs handle Internet traffic, because in theory they may have an incentive to discriminate between one packet of data going to the end users and another, in a way that is harmful to the public. That is, this has always been about the “last mile” of connectivity getting Internet access to homes and businesses.

The problem is this discrimination has always been theoretical. No major ISP has been able to afford to censor sites. No major ISP has dared send all its users to a competitor by charging a Facebook premium, or blocking popular video streaming services. There’s too much competition for that. The leftys want you to fear the big boys like Comcast, but it’s just not happening.
And yet the radicals in the FCC have tried to push this regulation anyway. The first big test case was when FCC went after Comcast for targeting users who were running copyright infringement rings on their home computers, flooding the network with large scale “BitTorrent seeding” operations, specifically using BitTorrent to distribute copyrighted works illegally. Comcast shut that down, FCC went after them for it. Comcast sued FCC, and won in the Comcast v FCC case, shutting down Net Neutrality.

But they tried again. This time they had a formal process, and created what they called the Open Internet Order. It was an illegal power grab of the same nature that the courts tossed out the first time, so Verizon sued, and in Verizon v FCC, the FCC lost again. Net Neutrality was struck down.

www.redstate.com...

But hey, if you like your Net Neutrality you can keep it....