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

a reply to: AgentShillington
I'm convinced you are just throwing out insults.

But it is hard to follow when one of you guys tells me that we have net neutrality but the government wants to make sure we keep it, but they legislated net neutrality (and lost, as I just posted in my last post) because we already had it so the government is going to help us keep the Net Neutrality we already have... by regulating the Internet more(by using government force to make sure the playground bullies of Comcast don't hurt the underdog Netflix and Verizon etc)....Sounds like Obamacare to me...if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
In fact someone just posted a list of a bunch of stuff the net neutrality we already have that we need government to protect will give us.

From kali

Americans know fully well that if we lose net neutrality that then the internet will run at the speed of government,

implying that we have net neutrality now but we will lose it of the government does not pass Net Neutrality legislation to protect it.
From Interupt

going to realize that Comcast is for undoing net neutrality

implying that we already have Net Neutrality now but Comcast is going to undo it
from seeker:

I just read that the FCC is trying to get internet providers to be changed into public utilities.

From greencmp who says we don't have net neutrality now(but of course he's on the opposing side)

We have never had so-called 'net-neutrality' and we never will. All legislation which claims to protect the little guy from the big guy produces results antithetical to their declared intention.

this implies that in order to have net neutrality the government must do this

from interpt

Net neutrality ensures a free market and competition which is good for the consumer

This is assuming we don't have a free market operating now and we must have the government protect us from the non free market operations of the bullies of Comcast and whatnot because they are monopolistic, which would mean that we don't have net neutrality(completely nuts because bigger government regulation always means less competition in the free market)

from interrupt:

In the end they will pass regulations in their favor and net neutrality will be just a word .

implying that although we need regulations for net neutrality the regulations they pass will not give it(I thought we already had it?)

from Kali:

He did appoint Wheeler, a former lobbyist for Comcast (

implying that it's good O wants net neutrality but his appointee is bad because he's in the pocket of Comcast...hmmmm
from Skeptic:

We already have defacto equal Internet speeds for all content providers.

Again implying that we already have de facto net neutrality but we need government to legislate it so that we get to keep it??? or enforce it???? Also implies that net neutrality is latent within the infrastructure and darn that greedy corporation for interfering with that, and if we just get government to regulate the free market(oh yah gov regulating/controlling the means of production and forcing the greedy corporations to get out of the way--that worked so well for the Soviet Union)

this is all just from the first page.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Please, don't take that as an insult. I wasn't insulting you, I was adjusting my opinion. Before, I thought your ignorance was willful, now I don't believe that it is. I don't believe that you have the ability to understand the situation. Again, I'm not insulting you, because I don't find being of average or lower intelligence anything to be ashamed of.

I can imagine that the world is a scary place when you're not really sure what's going on. And I can see how people expressing different ideas may seem like contradictions, but let me assure you of one thing. You're absolutely right. You are confused, and you don't get it. It's okay not to get it, like I said, I don't blame you for your lack of ability to understand.

I don't think that I will be engaging with you anymore on this forum. No malice. I just don't see the point.

Good day.

a reply to: AgentShillington

I'm just getting started with this now...

diesel:

Regulation of the internet as a utility will overturn the recent decision against net neutrality.

this implies that now we don't have net neutrality because of the decision against it and so regulation of the Internet will bring net neutrality(because we already have it remember?)

from diesel again:

Make money and destroy freedom of speech on the internet, s

this is directed at Ted Cruz, that we need government to protect the free speech we already have by passing the legislation

from Kali:

Net Neutrality = Allowing the internet to operate at the speed of available technology and infrastructure.

again implying it's something we already have(then why did we need to pass the Net Neutrality legislation?)
from Kali in the exact same post

Versus providers slowing down the speed and then charging for different tiers of speed.

so do we have it already or not?

Net Neutrality = "Neutral"..access for internet users and Internet Providers not shaking down websites.

from the very same post... so do we already have it or not? If Providers can do what she says then we do not?
So we really do not have it, but we want it so we think the government regulating the Internet will give us all free and equal access...

Do you not see how ambiguous this is?

a reply to: AgentShillington

Please, don't take that as an insult. I wasn't insulting you, I was adjusting my opinion. Before, I thought your ignorance was willful, now I don't believe that it is. I don't believe that you have the ability

So now you are not insulting me by replacing one insult with another.... and you are telling me I don't have the ability to understand things....sheesh

What you really mean is that I have a different opinion than you on what government can do and therefore I must be either willingly ignorant or not capable of understanding your opinions and those of others here who believe the government controlling the means of production(regulating and mandating which is what the Prez wants to do...is that not what a BAN is?) is going to give us more access and more freedom of speech, when history(of communism in the Soviet Union) has already shown us that more centralized control does not work and instead brings tyranny and lack of freedom.
And since you have clearly stated on this thread that you are a Marxist, it is clear that centralized control is what you desire.

I don't think that I will be engaging with you anymore on this forum. No malice. I just don't see the point.

I see...dismissing me because you can't make me agree with your viewpoint, must be soooo frustrating for you.
Oh before I forget, have you ever noticed the various fees and taxes the government imposes on public utilities?
Check out the list on this texas utility
www.puc.texas.gov...

Just check any utility bill you have and see the charges the government adds arbitrarily. If people here want to complain about the cost of providing services why not complain about what the government arbitrarily charges the public in addition to the actual cost of the serviceby the provider?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

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.

How about the Netflix debacle? If you want to bring it closer to home ATS has their webpage content altered on a daily basis by Comcast.

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.

BitTorrent is the best file sharing protocol in existence. People who are pirating material use it but there are many legitimate uses as well (and this isn't even getting into the argument of if it's even harmful). At the request (and a bit of money) from the MPAA and RIAA Comcast completely shut down all BT packets going over their network. Had it been successful people would have moved to previous formats like DirectConnect. Would they have then shut that down? Do you want an ISP to be able to totally remove your access to data because of what other users are using that access for? It was nothing more than corporate censorship. What happens when WinRar pays Comcast to block all transfers of zip files in order to make people switch over to their rar format? Should that be allowed?

this implies that now we don't have net neutrality because of the decision against it and so regulation of the Internet will bring net neutrality(because we already have it remember?)

We don't have neutrality. Bush signed legislation that made those principals the law in 2007 but they were undone shortly afterwards. We've been repealing the regulations for the past few years, all under Obama and all by Obama appointees. Obama has overseen the two biggest repeals of neutrality on a nations network in the world. Weren't you the one who couldn't trust anything Soros likes on principal? How do you feel about Obama being anti neutrality? Shouldn't you want the opposite of Obama?

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
What you really mean is that I have a different opinion than you on what government can do and therefore I must be either willingly ignorant or not capable of understanding your opinions and those of others here who believe the government controlling the means of production(regulating and mandating which is what the Prez wants to do...is that not what a BAN is?) is going to give us more access and more freedom of speech, when history(of communism in the Soviet Union) has already shown us that more centralized control does not work and instead brings tyranny and lack of freedom.

This isn't about government controlling the means of production, stop conflating the issue. This is 100% about private corporations vs private corporations and who gets to use regulation to get rid of who. If Verizon and Comcast win we lose Net Neutrality. If Verizon and Comcast win they get to legislate away Netflix and maintain their TV business. If Verizon and Comcast win they get to legislate away Skype and keep their phone business. If Verizon and Comcast win they get to legislate away Ebay and create their own regional markets. If Verizon and Comcast win they get to dictate how you use their product.

There is no scenario being proposed right now which takes the internet out of private hands.

Strange that after 15 years this is the thread to bring me out of the dark. Very seldom in my life to find my self on the fence about an issue. I love the internet as is. I know if corp. get it i'm screwed. I know if gov. gets it i'm screwed. Sometimes you just got to go with our gut. My gut tells me that all you left, right, pro, and against people don't care at all about who or what me or my family cares about. So your my enemy's. Simple enough. Lets go from there. Unless there is a leave it alone option that i'm missing. If not then as far as your political bull# i see everyday then well that saying "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." No longer stands. Because as a bad man i'm sick of waiting for you #ing good men to do something.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
So now you are not insulting me by replacing one insult with another.... and you are telling me I don't have the ability to understand things....sheesh

What you really mean is that I have a different opinion than you...

No. I don't want to engage with you any further on this but it is important to clear up one point before I am done.

It's not that I think you don't have the ability to understand because we have different opinions. There are a lot of people in this thread that have different opinions than I do and seem to be able to understand what is happening in the thread, and what is being discussed about Net Neutrality. I don't think you have the ability to understand anyone else's point of view based on the things you seem confused about regarding everyone else's point of view.

It's so simple to understand but this thread is just the beginning of how it will be turned into confusion and republicans will say, " get the government off my Internet." And then corporations will swoop in and take away the freedoms we've enjoyed, break the Internet into tiered levels where you have to pay extra for access to certain sites. No more free and open internet.

GOPs honest stance: Don't allow government to stop corporations from controlling the Internet.

Net neutrality stance: nobody gets to control the Internet. It remains free and open.

Stay the same and corporations will take over like they have already begun to do. Netflix is paying extra. If they don't, Comcast and Verizon will throttle the speed, which means you see buffering no matter what speed you're paying for. Stay the same and this only gets worse.

Net neutrality keeps things the way we have been enjoying them.

Why do we need regulation if we haven't needed it before? Because the Internet is now something everybody needs more than TV. Now it's like food and water and power - we need it, and so now corporations know they can F us for it and they are just now getting the balls to try it. Net neutrality stops this from happening.

Don't let the confusion spin machine work.

This is not left vs right, it's greed vs fairness.

Why is Obama playing golf with the CEO of Comcast if he's standing in the way of their tiered structure plans? That doesn't make sense.

originally posted by: Bone75
Why is Obama playing golf with the CEO of Comcast if he's standing in the way of their tiered structure plans? That doesn't make sense.

Why would he not have discussions with Comcast CEO? Golf is friendly way to chit chat and try to see eye to eye.

originally posted by: Bone75
Why is Obama playing golf with the CEO of Comcast if he's standing in the way of their tiered structure plans? That doesn't make sense.

The short answer is that Obama took up golf as an informal way to get business done once he no longer needed to worry about apperances. It's pretty common actually for deals to be struck in such circumstances. Why is he playing with the CEO of Comcast? The answer to that is because the FCC is ineffective. The current head of the FCC is the former chief lobbyist for the ISP's and he has shown no willingness or ability to actually push back against the industry, likely because he wants a job with them again once his term is up. So we're back to Comcast, Obama is trying to strike a deal, it's probably something like ease up on the lawsuit and we'll give you X. Essentially, they'll get to break the law and get money for doing so, but the law will still appear to exist for everyone else.

To sum it all up, he's doing what he should have done 6 years ago like he promised he would. But, at this point he's probably going to fail. We have two types of companies in the US that are beyond the reach of the government: The banks and the telecoms. In many ways Comcast is more powerful than the US Government, there's not a whole lot of room to negotiate.

a reply to: Aazadan

So azadan now you are telling me we don't have neutrality. But half the people posting on here say we do and they are all supporters of net neutrality. It's so ambiguous and no one will admit it.

BitTorrent is the best file sharing protocol in existence. People who are pirating material use it but there are many legitimate uses as well

Ok Azadan, I respect your technical knowledge. (I just disagree with you on gov intervention as the answer)

This isn't about government controlling the means of production, stop conflating the issue. This is 100% about private corporations vs private corporations and who gets to use regulation to get rid of who.

I said that somewhere in this thread that the Prez was protecting Google and it was Google vs Comcast etc....soooooo that doesn't change the fact that more government involvement creates bigger government.
I realize it is only incremental.
You may say I'm conflating the issue. But please at least admit that bigger government does not increase freedom. It is not going to here either.

Just look at any public utility bill you have and note the fees, taxes, etc. So you guys think that it's going to lower the cost to have gov regulate this?

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Aazadan

So azadan now you are telling me we don't have neutrality. But half the people posting on here say we do and they are all supporters of net neutrality. It's so ambiguous and no one will admit it.

Half the people posting here don't know what we have. They're coming from a place of "my internet works, lets keep it that way". Bush signed some paperwork to lay out the principals of a neutral network but it never had any teeth, it was more just guidelines we should go by. In 2007 that was put to the test by Comcast and they were struck down by the courts. Since Obama got into office he and the FCC have been repealing Net Neutrality piece by piece. What we have now is maybe 75% neutral. For most end users it is, but for the big businesses that offer competing products to the telecoms they're facing issues.

Reclassifying the internet as a utility is the easiest way to bring back the regulations that keep online markets open and fair.

I said that somewhere in this thread that the Prez was protecting Google and it was Google vs Comcast etc....soooooo that doesn't change the fact that more government involvement creates bigger government.
I realize it is only incremental.
You may say I'm conflating the issue. But please at least admit that bigger government does not increase freedom. It is not going to here either.

Just look at any public utility bill you have and note the fees, taxes, etc. So you guys think that it's going to lower the cost to have gov regulate this?

I don't know who the President is protecting... until recently he has done literally nothing on this issue for 6 years even though it was a major part of his election platform. The only thing he did was fill the FCC with telecom lobbyists.

We can't have no regulation on the internet, and the reason for that is because the ISP's act as monopolies. It's not good for markets to have an unregulated monopoly running the show.

The answer to the problem that results in the fewest number of regulations, and also happens to keep the implementation of the internet in private hands is to reclassify them as a utility. A better approach would be to rewrite the net neutrality rules as they were coined in 2004 but we don't have the political will for that.

It sounds counterintuitive but the big government/big regulation plan is to repeal Net Neutrality. Each ISP has literally spent billions in lobbying money for this result because it would give them the power to remove anyone from the internet that they want, and as a monopoly there is no market alternative. This results in the FCC then having to write a bunch of lengthy nuanced rules as to what can and can't be done.

You may say I'm conflating the issue. But please at least admit that bigger government does not increase freedom. It is not going to here either.

I can admit that fine. Bigger government doesn't increase freedom, but I have another caveat to that. Bigger business doesn't increase freedom either, it's simply trading one master for another. Small business means freedom. The thing that you don't seem to get is that Net Neutrality isn't the big government approach. It's the small government approach. Seriously, it involves 1-2 sentences in regulations that effectively state the ISP has to deliver content that the customer is paying for. The hybrid approach that the FCC is pushing and Comcast is for is many thousands of pages. The repeal entirely plan which is the end game, is many thousands of pages beyond that.

The only plans under which small business, and thus open markets and freedom can thrive are either reaffirming Net Neutrality, or by reclassifying the internet as a utility, which effectively does the same thing.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

"Just look at any public utility bill you have and note the fees, taxes, etc. So you guys think that it's going to lower the cost to have gov regulate this?"

I'll pay quite a bit extra in taxes to make sure the Internet is treated the same way as water or electricity. I won't need to though. Public utilities are businesses but their obligation is to provide the lowest cost possible for their utility to cover necessary infrastructure. In return for this "civic responsibility" they have a state mandated monopoly. This is why you have so few (if any) choices on your electric or cable company but also why you aren't being charged an arm and a leg. The costs of maintaining the infrastructure are spread across the population.

You really have no idea how great that is. Just look at healthcare, prisons, or education to see how privatization doesn't work for issues of public good. Just try to imagine what things would be like if the public utilities you take for granted were privatized. Imagine if your access to electricity or water was not considered a sacred, protected right and the private companies could cut you off or price gouge you with no consequences.

Now extend that to the internet. Wouldn't it be nice to know that your ability to browse the web is treated as inviolately as access to clean water? That no one can pollute it, or cut it off, or limit it, or overcharge for it.

Since I'm incredibly cynical these days, i would like to note that this could be a back door plan somehow for controlling the internet . I doubt it though since it would be much easier to just let the corporations do that themselves. All they need is the go ahead and they'd tear net neutrality to pieces like the feral dogs they are.

Whatever my cynicism, this internet as utility deal has the ring of truth to it in my opinion.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
It's so simple to understand but this thread is just the beginning of how it will be turned into confusion and republicans will say, " get the government off my Internet." And then corporations will swoop in and take away the freedoms we've enjoyed, break the Internet into tiered levels where you have to pay extra for access to certain sites. No more free and open internet.

The Republicans are going into a pretty tough election in 2016. If they win here there are going to be a lot of pissed off people, and people will remember for 2 years. Every website owner in the country will remember, and remind everyone they can. They do not want to win here, they just want to appear to put up a fight and then bring the issue up again in the future. Sadly, it looks like they may very well win.

I can say in my case that if they win, I'll have to shut down the forum I run. I'll have to shut down my private server. And I'll have to seriously change some software I'm writing and set it up to be sold only outside of the US.

Makes me wish we had a Pirate Party in the US. Issues like this prove that we need a few people in DC with some tech skills rather than them all being doctors, lawyers, and bureaucrats.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
It's so simple to understand but this thread is just the beginning of how it will be turned into confusion and republicans will say, " get the government off my Internet." And then corporations will swoop in and take away the freedoms we've enjoyed, break the Internet into tiered levels where you have to pay extra for access to certain sites. No more free and open internet.

GOPs honest stance: Don't allow government to stop corporations from controlling the Internet.

Net neutrality stance: nobody gets to control the Internet. It remains free and open.

Stay the same and corporations will take over like they have already begun to do. Netflix is paying extra. If they don't, Comcast and Verizon will throttle the speed, which means you see buffering no matter what speed you're paying for. Stay the same and this only gets worse.

Net neutrality keeps things the way we have been enjoying them.

Why do we need regulation if we haven't needed it before? Because the Internet is now something everybody needs more than TV. Now it's like food and water and power - we need it, and so now corporations know they can F us for it and they are just now getting the balls to try it. Net neutrality stops this from happening.

Don't let the confusion spin machine work.

This is not left vs right, it's greed vs fairness.

Seriously??? Actually, there are ample republicans for Net Neutrality as seen here with Sheppard Smith.

www.youtube.com...

And I don't agree with Sheppard what so ever on this issue as his assessment is mostly inaccurate hyperbole.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
It's so simple to understand but this thread is just the beginning of how it will be turned into confusion and republicans will say, " get the government off my Internet." And then corporations will swoop in and take away the freedoms we've enjoyed, break the Internet into tiered levels where you have to pay extra for access to certain sites. No more free and open internet.

The Republicans are going into a pretty tough election in 2016. If they win here there are going to be a lot of pissed off people, and people will remember for 2 years. Every website owner in the country will remember, and remind everyone they can. They do not want to win here, they just want to appear to put up a fight and then bring the issue up again in the future. Sadly, it looks like they may very well win.

I can say in my case that if they win, I'll have to shut down the forum I run. I'll have to shut down my private server. And I'll have to seriously change some software I'm writing and set it up to be sold only outside of the US.

Makes me wish we had a Pirate Party in the US. Issues like this prove that we need a few people in DC with some tech skills rather than them all being doctors, lawyers, and bureaucrats.

LOL, this post reminds me of the Alec Baldwin escapade about if Bush won the election. If the Pub's win the election in 2016, nothing will change... They are the same pig with merely different lipstick. Both parties may seem to have different platforms but this is merely to keep the country polarized so that they can continue to chip pieces of your individuality away.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

But it is hard to follow when one of you guys tells me that we have net neutrality but the government wants to make sure we keep i

Like others have mentioned , it appears that you are making this purposely difficult for some reason?

Here you go:

1. Net neutrality principles have been in place since the inception of the internet.

2. Net neutrality principles allowed for the SUCCESS of the internet.

3. Net neutrality principles HAS BEEN PROVEN to work.

4. Net neutrality principles existed since the beginning of the internet until January 1 2014. The Telecom Oligopoly (ATT,Verizon,Comcast) spent several millions of dollars in lobbying .

They also sabotaged net neutrality by hiring former FCC executives as their Att , Verizon, Comcast executives than sending them back to the FCC as executives with a revolving policy between gov't and corporations.

On 14 January 2014, the DC Circuit Court determined in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (2014) that the FCC has no authority to enforce Network Neutrality rules, as service providers are not identified as "common carriers"

5. The FCC is trying to reclassify the internet as a utility in order to apply the same principles (net neutrality) that allowed for the internet to become such a success . BY reclassifying the internet as a utility they get back the net neutrality principles that allowed for the internet to flourish.

The FCC is only trying to reclassify the internet to maintain net neutrality principles because their was a huge pull by the internet members via petitions and demonstration efforts stating that they wanted to keep NET Neutrality principles.

6. Since the undoing of net neutrality the ISP have already begun to extort money from other business like netflix and youtube which has been proven by the industry and the graphs that have been shown in this very same thread.

7. Extortion is just the beginning. The Oligopoly is holding back the real damage they can do because right now net neutrality is a hot political topic.

8. NOT Having net neutrality principles gives control to the already most hated Oligopoly in America by its very own unwilling customers. Not Having net neutrality kills freedom of Speech because the gov't (through lobbying) and the ISP control what people can access.


Summary:
Net neutrality has been proven to work, since its undoing in Jan of this year the ISP are already extorting other business that rely on the internet. However, they are holding back for the real damage for when net neutrality is not a hot political topic.

Not Having net neutrality kills what created the internet: small ideas from small businesses that expanded: Facebook, google, wikipedia,independent news sources, ATS, all started small then became behemoths. Without net neutrality only the existing Behemoths will thrive and the internet will become a stagnate informational medium.

originally posted by: neo96
I agree with Cruz after seeing Obama care in action.

Hell they couldn't even design a website right.

They DID NOT MAKE healthcare affordable.

Their idea of 'affordable' is just robbing from one group to give to another group who already had access to healthcare under medicaid, and the EMTALA.

LOL fact the US government operations at the speed of slow.

Hell in fact it does the very same thing as giving some people fast speeds, and others slow speeds.

the "robbing" you are talking about has been coming from the bottom, and going to the top, but you have to look at the actual facts of income distribution to see it, rather than listen to opinions of the people that have benefitted from it

a reply to: spiritualzombie


Well I thought the issue was that corporations like Comcast are already doing what they are doing and the pro gov people want gov to come in and regulate the industry some more because they believe that will get them better access,speed and lower costs. They believe that gov can and should force Comcast to give equal access to everybody regardless of the applications being used(ie Netflix movie downloads vs checking email),
I beg to differ but then who am I?
I see some people here throwing tech terms around, some people are genuinely knowledgeable, some people full of themselves and what they think they know, and some people just plain politically biased.
I know that a lot of techies like the idea of net neutrality, and contrary to popular opinion on this thread, I do understand why, and I actually have a degree in network management and understand the terminology and the principles and yet people here have assumed that I am just politically biased. I've had these people insulting me and telling me I don't know what I am talking about blah blah blah, but whatever. I pointed out the ambiguity of people's collective statements here. While I understand the concept of net neutrality as put forth by the left leaning people, I disagree that gov intervention will bring much positive results.
I understand the principles that knowledgeable people like Skeptic and Azadan have brought to the table. I just differ on whether it is a good thing for gov to regulate the industry more. The industry already has various standards for interoperability and protocols.
I am concerned about the groups who have been behind the push for neutrality. They are radical left leaning and funded by the ultra leftist socialist George Soros, and since I am against socialism, I see this as a push toward that goal.
It really does get tiring though when people feel a need for insults when someone doesn't agree with their points.
Over the years, the industry has gone from the speed of dial uo(56kbps) to modern broadband with the network speed of 10/100/1000 www.tomshardware.com... So that is what techs go by in terms of bandwidth capability inherent within the infrastructure.
What happens though is that Internet providers give us connections to the Internet and that is where the issue comes in of charging different price structures for different needs(movie downloads which use up bandwidth).
What net neutrality wants to do is charge everybody basically the same fee no matter how much bandwidth they are using, and they want the gov to enforce this.
So while people here keep telling me I don't understand the concept, I do, I just don't believe in government price fixing.