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: 27
140
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

I'm aware of the whole public utility issue interrupt. As I keep saying, I don't like the idea of government price fixing. You are going to rely on an ISP to give you a connection. You still have to rely on those who run the backbone of the Internet. I understand what you are trying to say here.
You are using the term "net neutrality" to describe something which you view to have already existed before providers like Comcast decided to charge people different pricing structures for the bandwidth they provide for their customers. It is just like any other price structure inherent within the free market economy which socialists hate and they want to enforce equality for all because that is the mindset.
So for your benefit I am going to compare the Internet as a commodity to the example of gov price fixing of milk as explained by the Von Mises Institute

The government believes that the price of a definite commodity, e.g., milk, is too high. It wants to make it possible for the poor to give their children more milk. Thus it resorts to a price ceiling and fixes the price of milk at a lower rate than that prevailing on the free market. The result is that the marginal producers of milk, those producing at the highest cost, now incur losses. As no individual farmer or businessman can go on producing at a loss, these marginal producers stop producing and selling milk on the market. They will use their cows and their skill for other more profitable purposes. They will, for example, produce butter, cheese or meat. There will be less milk available for the consumers, not more. This, or course, is contrary to the intentions of the government. It wanted to make it easier for some people to buy more milk. But, as an outcome of its interference, the supply available drops. The measure proves abortive from the very point of view of the government and the groups it was eager to favor. It brings about a state of affairs, which?again from the point of view of the government?is even less desirable than the previous state of affairs which it was designed to improve.



Now, the government is faced with an alternative. It can abrogate its decree and refrain from any further endeavors to control the price of milk. But if it insists upon its intention to keep the price of milk below the rate the unhampered market would have determined and wants nonetheless to avoid a drop in the supply of milk, it must try to eliminate the causes that render the marginal producers' business unremunerative. It must add to the first decree concerning only the price of milk a second decree fixing the prices of the factors of production necessary for the production of milk at such a low rate that the marginal producers of milk will no longer suffer losses and will therefore abstain from restricting output. But then the same story repeats itself on a remoter plane. The supply of the factors of production required for the production of milk drops, and again the government is back where it started. If it does not want to admit defeat and to abstain from any meddling with prices, it must push further and fix the prices of those factors of production which are needed for the production of the factors necessary for the production of milk. Thus the government is forced to go further and further, fixing step by step the prices of all consumers' goods and of all factors of production?both human, i.e., labor, and material?and to order every entrepreneur and every worker to continue work at these prices and wages.


mises.org...

note: since people on the left typically support socialistic means of production and costs they typically support the concept of net neutrality and many techs seem to be on that level; whereas people on the right like Ted Cruz believe in free enterprise and therefore those people fall on the other side of the issue.
edit on 12-11-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus




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.



Not true at all. I pay $80 for 50MB download speeds that is all I wan't.




So while people here keep telling me I don't understand the concept, I do,


You are the one who is saying that you are confused and don't get it.


a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

But it is hard to follow when one of you guys tells me





I just don't believe in government price fixing.


But you do believe in Oligopoly price fixing?

You do realize that the gov't works for the lobbyist right? So what the gov't does is what the lobbyist want, not what the people want.

That is why the gov't undid net neutrality. it was not the people that wanted it to be undone it was the lobbyist that wanted to be undone.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   

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 seem unable to follow your own arguments?


originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus


I was looking into net neutrality years ago, and I was never completely convinced one way or the other, but now I know that Soros is pushing it....sorry, I will never trust anything that man is about.




originally posted by: Indigo5
I also read that George Soros is anti-animal abuse...ever since reading that I beat my dog once a day!


Your premise was that since George Soros is pro Net Neutrality...Net Neutrality must be bad.

Now, in response to me showing the lack of logic in that claim ...you change your premise to bad people can still be on the right side of some issues...Which is actually what I highlighted to you!

That is kind of hilarious...to make a failed argument and then pretend you made the opposite, adopt the opposite position and assign your failed argument to the person that pointed out your failure!


edit on 12-11-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus




note: since people on the left typically support socialistic means of production and costs they typically support the concept of net neutrality and many techs seem to be on that level; whereas people on the right like Ted Cruz believe in free enterprise and therefore those people fall on the other side of the issue.


I think that is the reason for your bias, you are making this a political issue and siding with team R no matter what.

I'm actually a Libertarian and supported Ron Paul if you look at my older threads. However, I adjust and use commonsense
before committing to any party affiliation. I believe in smaller gov't and libertarian principles now because our gov't is so out of control and strictly working for the lobbyist and not the people what so ever. So i think the gov't having less power is a good thing while they are solely motivated by money.

Cliff Note version:
1. The internet is NOT a commodity the The internet IS a global economy in itself .

2. Net neutrality allowed for free market principles to exist. Without net neutrality you have price fixing in the internet global economy.

As a republican you should be for net neutrality to promote competition and free market principles.
edit on 491130America/ChicagoWed, 12 Nov 2014 10:49:58 -0600up3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
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.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

No.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with what ISPs charge customers for bandwidth. It has everything to do with the ISPs having the option of charging certain CONTENT PROVIDERS more for delivering their content to a subscriber unless said content provider pays more to the ISP.

If I'm paying for a 20M connection, then what I want is full utilization of that connection from my ISP with the content I'm using being none of their damn business. It's my 20M connection, and I'm paying for it. If I choose to receive content from Company X, then I don't want my ISP throttling it because of who the provider is. I want 20M, not choked down to 56k because Company X hasn't agreed to extortion.

If I'm paying for 20M, then I don't want the ISP to be able to choose for me which content providers can deliver at a 20M rate to me and which ones can't.

We want the ISPs to handle the data transfer neutrally, without regard to the provider of the content.
Doesn't do anything regarding what an ISP charges an individual customer for speed, but has everything to do with how you can utilize WHAT YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Indigo, you don't have to bold all your characters for my benefit.
In fact, I have had people tell me Soros must be a really nice guy because you know he gives his money away to people(I literally had someone tell me that at work even after I told him that Soros admitted he stole money from the Jews at age 14 and has no remorse), and so I do not look at the relative good and evil of whatever charitable work these people engage in. Soros is considered a philanthropist the same as Rockefeller the same as Bill Gates the same as Carnegie the same as whatever giant mega industrialist banker or whatever you can come up with.
They all have charities they use for tax shelters and also to make them look nice to the public all the while they are fleecing everyone and gathering more power.
Somehow even though people such as yourself keep trying to convince that they do not like giant corporations who fleece people, you still seem to support people who do terrible things because you saw they gave money away to this or that cause.
Because Soros is heavily engaged in major manipulations involving currencies(entire nations in fact), and various leftist causes, there is nothing he can do I would trust.
I'm sorry if that bothers you so much you have to bold your letters to me. I simply don't agree with Soros' leftist causes and I guess you do. So that is where we are at this moment in time and space.


edit on 12-11-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: yeahright


Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has uncovered documents from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that indicate officials at the FCC colluded with the leftist Free Press organization to publicly push a new plan to regulate the Internet under the FCC’s so-called “net neutrality” program. Judicial Watch obtained the documents pursuant to a December 27, 2010, Freedom of Information Act request.


In December 2010, the FCC voted 3-2 to advance its “net neutrality program.” This decision seems to fly in the face of an April, 2010 federal appeals court ruling that the FCC had exceeded its authority in seeking to regulate the Internet and enforce “net neutrality” rules.The supporters of “net neutrality,” including Free Press, argue that high-speed Internet access is a “civil right,” and are recommending new government regulations to provide taxpayer-funded broadband Internet access to all populations, especially those deemed “underserved.” Opponents of “net neutrality” argue the program is designed to impose greater government control over the Internet and will result in less access, not more. Moreover, opponents of “net neutrality,” also dispute the claim that Internet access is a basic civil right protected by the U.S. Constitution.Judicial Watch uncovered internal correspondence showing unusual coordination by some officials at the FCC and Free Press in pushing the “net neutrality” agenda in the run up to the controversial FCC vote in December:

www.judicialwatch.org... uments-show/

Next time when you want to download a movie, or YouTube is loading slowly, it isn't because Comcast is being mean to you, it's because there is a shared bandwidth on the network and everyone else is downloading movies too. It is called Internet traffic, and every tech here knows that, and they know about spikes and lows of traffic, protocols, time of day of activities. Every tech here probably is familiar with IP sniffing tools which tell you all that information, who is doing what at what times and how many packets are transferred etc.

There is much more of an agenda than just paying for some content.
edit on 12-11-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Why shouldn't I get 50 MB download speeds when I pay $80 bucks for it?

What you and Ted cruz are suggesting is the following:


1. I go to purchase a truck and agree to pay $100 bucks for the ford truck with the dealer.

2. The dealer than goes to FORD and says I want a bigger cut of the money for this truck . Ford disagrees and doesn't give it to them.

3. The dealer still takes my money and says to bad and gives me a bicycle instead of the ford truck.

Are OK with that?
Is the republican party OK with that?

edit on 111130America/ChicagoWed, 12 Nov 2014 11:11:25 -0600000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Indigo5

Indigo, you don't have to bold all your characters for my benefit.



Yah..Bad assumption on my behalf...I was thinking maybe you weren't actually reading posts, but obviously there is some other explanation.



originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Indigo5

In fact, I have had people tell me Soros must be a really nice guy because you know he gives his money away to people


God help me, you still don't get it. It doesn't matter if George Soros eats babies...if a baby eater says that Crack Cocaine is bad for you...that does NOT mean that Crack Cocaine is good for you. You cited George Soros supporting Net Neutrality as your reason to be opposed to it.


originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Indigo5
Because Soros is heavily engaged in major manipulations involving currencies(entire nations in fact), and various leftist causes, there is nothing he can do I would trust.
I'm sorry if that bothers you so much you have to bold your letters to me. I simply don't agree with Soros' leftist causes and I guess you do. So that is where we are at this moment in time and space.



WTF makes you think this is a leftist cause?

To be clear...you are utterly failing to "think"...

Since clearly what OTHER PEOPLE THINK is more important than coming to your own conclusions...maybe this will help you with your definition of "Left Wing Causes"??

BTW - George Soros also goes to the bathroom daily...vacating must be a left wing cause!

Try this absent actually thinking.

New poll: Republicans and Democrats both overwhelmingly support net neutrality


In a new survey, the University of Delaware's Center for Political Communication found that support for neutrality is strong and widespread -- regardless of gender, age, race and level of education. About 81 percent of Americans oppose allowing Internet providers like Comcast and Verizon to charge Web sites and services more if they want to reach customers more quickly, that is, allowing what are often called "Internet fast lanes."

Republicans were slightly more likely to support net neutrality than Democrats. Eighty-one percent of Democrats and 85 percent of Republicans in the survey said they opposed fast lanes.

www.washingtonpost.com...

WOW.
edit on 12-11-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-11-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42




Why shouldn't I get 50 MB download speeds when I pay $80 bucks for it? What you and Ted cruz are suggesting is the following:



No, that is not true. What Ted Cruz knows and what all the techs here know is that every network has certain bandwidth capabilities and that certain applications are bandwidth intensive.
You seem to be under the impression that even while you are paying more for a product, Comcast is deliberately being mean to you and stopping you from getting what you want, when all that is probably happening is that everyone else trying to download movies is putting extra traffic on the network.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I know more about that than you would probably believe. Yes, traffic balancing occurs. What net neutrality does is prohibit traffic differentiation based upon who the content provider is.

If you sell "X" amount of bandwidth to your customer base, then you ought to be able to handle it. If you can't, then you order more capacity. If you then need to charge more per meg to your customers, then you do it across the board.

Charging content providers on the back end exorbitant amounts of money to deliver their unthrottled content is unconscionable.

I pay for 20M. Deliver 20M to me regardless of who I'm requesting to content from. If you can't, then you've oversubscribed and as an ISP that's a YOU problem.

This is a naked cash/power grab.

Have you noticed recently, Comcast bought Time Warner Cable and Level 3 ate up Time Warner Telecom?

Consolidation into fewer and fewer hands is happening, and losing net neutrality concepts will completely undermine and irrevocably alter the landscape. And not for the good of the consumer.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: interupt42




Why shouldn't I get 50 MB download speeds when I pay $80 bucks for it? What you and Ted cruz are suggesting is the following:



No, that is not true. What Ted Cruz knows and what all the techs here know is that every network has certain bandwidth capabilities and that certain applications are bandwidth intensive.
You seem to be under the impression that even while you are paying more for a product, Comcast is deliberately being mean to you and stopping you from getting what you want, when all that is probably happening is that everyone else trying to download movies is putting extra traffic on the network.





Bulls&^


originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
The Oatmeal has a very educational cartoon about what the Internet experience could be without Net Neutrality... Here's just a tiny portion about how it's already happening:





It's classic extortion. Yay, extortion!



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Indigo5

I simply don't agree with Soros' leftist causes and I guess you do.


yah...Me...and 85% of Republican voters...believe in the "leftist cause" of Net Neutrality...logic fail

New poll: Republicans and Democrats both overwhelmingly support net neutrality


Republicans were slightly more likely to support net neutrality than Democrats. Eighty-one percent of Democrats and 85 percent of Republicans in the survey said they opposed fast lanes.


edit on 12-11-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Thanks Horus, your knowledge and dedication to educate have been much more helpful to this conversation than my frustrated outbursts. I appreciate your integrity, verbosity and honest skepticism immensely.

Hopefully, a few single eyebrows have risen as a result of your efforts. It is all that we can hope for as we accelerate down the road to serfdom.

With respect and admiration-

Slán agus beanacht



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Reverso world..



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: yeahright




Have you noticed recently, Comcast bought Time Warner Cable and Level 3 ate up Time Warner Telecom?


I used to be a Comcast customer. I don't like corporate power grabs any more than you do. I just don't happen to think that the government enforcing more regulations on the free market is going to fix things the way you evidently do.
I am now a Charter customer based on availability in my area and trust me their customer service sucks.
I don't like big mergers any more than you do.
I have argued that once government becomes involved, and if they reclassify as public utility, you are just going to see more gov fees and charges just like you do on other existing utilities.
Why would you want that?
And I'm almost certain that once they get their gov claws into it, they won't stop with making Comcast give you x amount of mb for content of your choosing. In fact, I think that is just what they are using to sell people like you the idea of more gov control and regulation.
That is the conspiracy theorist in me though...and I cannot prove it beyond what I just posted that they are attempting to force expanded broadband access for everyone.
And then there's this:

Free Press has deep ties to radical leftists and socialists. Robert McChesny, former editor of the socialist magazineMonthly Review, is the co-founder and president of Free Press. Kim Gandy, the Chairman of the Free Press Board of Directors, served as the President of the National Organization for Women from 2001-2009. Craig Aaron, Free Press’s President and CEO, formerly worked as managing editor of the socialist tabloid In These Times. Free Press is financially supported by George Soros’s Open Society Institute and other hard-left groups such as the Ford Foundation and Democracy Alliance.“Net neutrality is just another Obama power grab. This is nothing less than the Obama administration’s attempt to stage a government takeover of the Internet under the guise of ‘net neutrality.’ So it should come as no surprise that Free Press, the hard left organization with socialist ties, is improperly driving the so-called net neutrality agenda from inside the Obama administration. The FCC is supposed to be an independent agency that follows the law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The American people should be deeply troubled by the fact that the Obama administration, on issue after issue, seems to be run by shadowy leftist organizations. Our government is supposed to be ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people’, not ‘of the Left, by the Left, and for the Left.’”


www.judicialwatch.org... uments-show/


Now the taxpayer is supposed to foot the bill for HIGH SPEED internet! Fast, affordable access to … the internet? Wasn’t that the healthcare mantra?

across the country to use new, high-speed internet technology because residents either can’t access the technology, or they can’t afford it. The Federal Communications Commission recently co-hosted an event highlighting its new agenda for “digital inclusion.”
Further research indicates a clear liberl network pushing for drastic broadband reform. Locklear has been an advocate for InternetforEveryone.org–an organization founded by “media reform” organization Free Press. Free Press has been in the news lately as a driving force behind Democrats’ plans for net neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine. Locklear and has also tried to garner support for high-speed internet access by portraying the issue as one based in civil rights related to her tribal roots:
In 2009, the average price of dial-up internet–as Ms. Locklear claimed to have been “stuck with”–in the U.S. was $26.60. A little research shows that in the Pembroke, NC, area however, Locklear has access to both cable and satellite internet providers at costs starting at $29.99/month. For a difference of a few dollars, she insists the FCC come to the rescue to provide “fast, affordable and open” internet access for her and her community.



usactionnews.com...
edit on 12-11-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

The problem with your arguments is you assume the US has a free market and the bad government regulations are out to destroy it.

The US does not have a legal free market, we are an OLIGARCHY. The only market places where free market principles actually happen is the black market. Everything else is already extremely regulated.

This bill is good for consumers, us the citizen who use the internet. It is bad for the elite ISPs because they can not force companies like NetFlix to pay huge fees to get equal bandwidth.

One thing many forget about this argument is the US is the behind the rest of the developed world with internet speeds. The big companies learned they can charge extra for higher speeds and have been milking the markets in terms of internet speeds for over a decade now.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

This is exactly what the ISP did to netflix and its customers.

1. I paid my ISP $80 for my 50MB download speeds.
2. My ISP couldn't get more money from NETFLIX
3. MY ISP then PURPOSELY slowed down my connection via rerouting netflix.
4. However at the same time my ISP CONTINUED to charge me and all its other customers for the 50MB download speeds, despite taking efforts to make sure we didn't get that speed.

After netflix paid them the speed miraculously increased.

Did comcast magically overnight bury thousands of lines and built new routers and servers to provide faster bandwidth. No they didn't, they used the same bandwidth they had. Th only difference was they just stopped PURPOSELY slowing down netflix traffic after they extorted them for more money.
edit on 101130America/ChicagoWed, 12 Nov 2014 12:10:24 -0600000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
I just don't happen to think that the government enforcing more regulations on the free market is going to fix things the way you evidently do.
I am now a Charter customer based on availability in my area and trust me their customer service sucks.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

You're making my point for me. It isn't a free market. In most cases, you have one, maybe in some highly dense population areas two options for residential internet. A free market will likely never exist in our lifetimes for true broadband because only the cable tv company and legacy local telco have the to-the-home last mile capability with coax, copper, or fiber.

There was a brief flirtation with Broadband over Powerline, but the physics never did support that as viable.

You pay for 20M. You subscribe to content from Company X. Your Charter ISP decides Company X for whatever reason, needs to pay Charter a premium. So what gets delivered to you is whatever Charter decides to throttle it to.

You as a subscriber have what as recourse? Free Market? Unless you consider satellite or wireless as viable (which I sure don't at this point) you don't have one.

The regulation of which we speak, forbids ISPs from throttling content of specific content providers.

Bottom line, the government has created the hostility which causes people such as yourself to go as far as to doubt things which are a slam-dunk positive just because the government (or some other individual or entity we hate is involved.

We're going to get what we deserve in aggregate, and that scares and frustrates the hell out of me.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Net neutrality bill is too much for the people to get behind. Perhaps not because what is in it but the way it has been portrayed so far. It is a stalemate now. A Data Privacy Bill that simply states that no carrier can change content or alter data from customers would get everyone behind it and start to protect that which we care about. At the least such a bill would shed light on what the problem is. Then a seperate bill that covers pricing could be the second step. The current bill is just a bill that was designed to fix the problems but allows for future corruption of the wording. I am all for the intent behind the current bill but i also know that these things come with future implications. The system we have is not perfect but smaller changes with more focused wording is the only way to get away from the right left debate and hijacking. These herders are tricky.



new topics

top topics



 
140
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join