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

originally posted by: Aazadan

Big Chief NCTC is already monkeying about with internet traffic and, likely slowing it down anyway, maybe nobody's told Cruz that yet.

originally posted by: beezzer
So in order to protect the internet from big business, we must turn it into a public utility?

That's the most expeditious way.

a reply to: beezzer

So in order to protect the internet from big business, we must turn it into a public utility?

That is because lawyers and politicians and neither party wants a consumer friendly internet.

Since lawyers and politicians got involved the perfectly working "net neutrality regulation" at the time now needs to become a public utility to maintain the same level control.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: buster2010

The only reason why Cruz is against net neutrality is because Obama supports it.

That has nothing todo with it. Its simply money from the lobbying industry.

But don't let yourself get fooled by Obama stance on Net neutrality either . He has allowed the FCC and Telecom open door policy to continue without any scrutiny .

Also while he may be talking about supporting net neutrality the bill that will be passed will be nothing like real net neutrality .

Neither side will support net neutrality as intended. They will add so much loopholes and B$ that it will only be a name on the bill.

This is not a republican versus democrat thing but a lobbyist versus consumer thing no matter how hard they try to make it a R vs D issue.

This.

Okay, the net is neutral now, thanks for the answers by the way, but won't be if government (Cruz) gets his hands on it.



So in order to protect the internet from big business, we must turn it into a public utility?

Yes.

Like water, electricity, natural gas etc.

Regulating internet service under Title II would mean reclassifying it as a utility, like water. This means that internet providers would just be pumping internet back and forth through pipes and not actually making any decisions about where the internet goes.

For the most part, that's a controversial idea in the eyes of service providers alone. It means that they're losing some control over what they sell, and that they can't favor certain services to benefit their own business.

Instead, providers would be stuck allowing consumers to use the internet as they want to, using whatever services they like without any penalty. If that sounds pretty great, it's because that's basically how the internet has worked up until now.

www.theverge.com...

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Net Neutrality isn't the government label. It's the advocate (of leaving the internet the hell alone) label. The government wants to end net neutrality. Ted Cruz wants the government to end net neutrality.

You are literally making my eyes bleed. Please, I beg you... re-read the thread.

Let me see if I have this right. . . .

Earlier on Monday, Obama outlined his plan to preserve net neutrality using the "strongest possible" rules. He urged the Federal Communications Commission to classify broadband Internet as a "telecommunications service" under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.

So Obama wants to protect the net by reclassifying it.

Broadband providers, including Comcast and Verizon, are fiercely opposed to such a reclassification, but open-Internet advocates say it is the only way to maintain the integrity of the Internet. Many Republicans are also opposed to the idea, contending it would constitute a government takeover of the Internet.

It would only be a take-over of the internet if something written in Title II of the Telecommunications Act allowed it. I wonder, has anyone read Title II of the Telecommunications Act?

Cruz also took to his Facebook page to express his disdain of net neutrality, calling it the "biggest regulatory threat to the Internet."

This is why everyone be hatin' in Cruz.

"[Net neutrality] puts the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities, and higher prices for consumers," Cruz wrote.

Is this true?

I need to look at Title II of the Telecommunications Act.

www.nationaljournal.com...

Title II, "Broadcast Services": Outlines the granting and licensing of broadcast spectrum by the government, including a provision to issue licenses to current television stations to commence digital television broadcasting, the use of the revenues generated by such licensing, the terms of broadcast licenses, the process of renewing broadcast licenses, direct broadcast satellite services, automated ship distress and safety systems, and restrictions on over-the-air reception devices
Sec. 201. Broadcast spectrum flexibility. Sec. 202. Broadcast ownership. Sec. 203. Term of licenses. Sec. 204. Broadcast license renewal procedures. Sec. 205. Direct broadcast satellite service. Sec. 206. Automated ship distress and safety systems. Sec. 207. Restrictions on over-the-air reception devices.

en.wikipedia.org...

Cruz just stirred up a hornet's nest. I know many many people whose #1 issue by far is net neutrality. I know a few who would take to the streets and riot if net neutrality ended.

a reply to: beezzer

Under title II, if the government didn't like what you said, could it cut you off?

Forget Ted Cruz for a second, forget the party lines, forget what party you're registered under. This "debate" isn't about whether net neutrality is good or bad, it's about government sticking it's big ole greedy nose into a non-issue and creating an issue to benefit from the outcome either way it goes. Just leave the internet as is. Further legislation either way will inevitably lead to exactly the opposite of what is best for the public.

a reply to: neo96

No. You're extremely confused.

Net neutrality = the internet as it is right now.

Ending net neutrality/Creating fast lanes = The FCC (government) and Ted Cruz (government) as well as Cable companies like Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner... all of them, getting to charge businesses for how fast their information on their websites goes out to the their customers (you and me).

Classifying the internet as a public utility = The FCC (government) declaring that the internet is a public utility and Internet Service Providers (Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon) cannot charge different people (ATS) differently than they charge other people (Comcast)... this could result in price hikes but price hikes for everyone.

There's another option though... leave the internet the hell alone. That's not what Ted Cruz wants.

originally posted by: beezzer
This.

Okay, the net is neutral now, thanks for the answers by the way, but won't be if government (Cruz) gets his hands on it.



So in order to protect the internet from big business, we must turn it into a public utility?

It's not really neutral now but it's more than it will be if this goes through. Obama ran on a platform of Net Neutrality but he pretty much backpeddled on it and let the FCC do what they've already done. The only reason we have any discussion at all at this point is due to the absolute s***storm raised by people who understand this stuff.

Basically, repealing Net Neutrality creates a large barrier to entry on the market. Free markets require low barriers to entry in order to make competition viable. The telecoms don't want this because they don't want competition, they would rather legislate away the ability of others to compete.

To step back a bit and give you some anecdotal fallout of this. I have been in school for a long time learning everything from art, to programming, to networking. I have done this so that I can start my own internet business, with a small staff that doesn't need to hire a bunch of specialists. This lets me operate on a smaller budget, which means I can be more competitive or even start it up in the first place. If we repeal Net Neutrality I will not be able to do business in the US because I won't be able to compete, I will have to move my business to another country and target Europe or South America as my primary market. Now I'm just one business and I'll only be employing maybe 5 people. But there's another million out there just like me that want to run an internet business. None of us will be able to do it but Ebay, Amazon, and Google will still have their companies.

a reply to: Kali74

Net neutrality = the internet as it is right now.

Did you read that article ?

Hell Read this post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That is not keeping the net as it is now.

a reply to: beezzer

It really depends on how they are going to fold the Internet into Title II. Are websites going to need "licenses"? Do they already have licenses if you have a domain? Will FCC get to regulate what is said or shown over the internet, like it can on broadcast television?

I don't know.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: beezzer
Under title II, if the government didn't like what you said, could it cut you off?

If it is forced to run as a public utility, than yes, the utility provider will be able to do what they like, with your service, when ever they like to.

That is the problem with 'Net Neutrality'. ISP's that never paid a dime into building the infrastructure want to use it at their leisure, but, on the other hand, those that did build it want to use it as the barrel to bend everybody else over.

Maybe, and just maybe, there is a more equitable solution than the current 'all or none' Net Neutrality bill...as another poster already mentioned, the big mistake was making this a legal and political battle...those two segments always tend to act in their own interests...not always their clients.

I thought the whole argument against net neutrality, originally, was not the outcome of the beginning "regulations" (speed), but the fact we had to give them the authority to "regulate" in the first place.

Grab the authority, in the name of something good, only to abuse it later. That's what I worry about.

Of course it sounds "fair", making sure Bill gets the same pipeline as Amazon, but when has the government ever stopped at fair?

This time it may be about speed, but next time it might be content. How can you prove, to me, that this isn't just a shady path toward a "Fairness Doctrine 2.0"?

Also, can anyone offer evidence that providers are planning any such speed manipulation? You say it WILL happen, show me. Sounds like a business model that will quickly sink a company.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: beezzer

Under title II, if the government didn't like what you said, could it cut you off?

That is covered by the constitution. If that was possible then Fox News wouldn't be on the air and you wouldn't be able to order porn on cable. TV and Cable falls under Title 2.

a reply to: beezzer

No the government can't cut you off if it doesn't like what you say, anymore than it could cut your phone service off because you used your phone line to state your opinion that Obama is a doo-doo head.

a reply to: lernmore

I thought the whole argument against net neutrality, originally, was not the outcome of the beginning "regulations" (speed), but the fact we had to give them the authority to "regulate" in the first place.

That is what they are talking about with 'net neutraility'.

In order for it to be 'fair' they have to REGULATE it.

And regulation just means more cash for them evil corporations to buy politicians with.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: beezzer
Under title II, if the government didn't like what you said, could it cut you off?

If it is forced to run as a public utility, than yes, the utility provider will be able to do what they like, with your service, when ever they like to.

That is the problem with 'Net Neutrality'. ISP's that never paid a dime into building the infrastructure want to use it at their leisure, but, on the other hand, those that did build it want to use it as the barrel to bend everybody else over.

Maybe, and just maybe, there is a more equitable solution than the current 'all or none' Net Neutrality bill...as another poster already mentioned, the big mistake was making this a legal and political battle...those two segments always tend to act in their own interests...not always their clients.

Thank you.

This is what makes me nervous and hesitant to jump on the bandwagon.

originally posted by: lernmore
I thought the whole argument against net neutrality, originally, was not the outcome of the beginning "regulations" (speed), but the fact we had to give them the authority to "regulate" in the first place.

Grab the authority, in the name of something good, only to abuse it later. That's what I worry about.

Of course it sounds "fair", making sure Bill gets the same pipeline as Amazon, but when has the government ever stopped at fair?

Again...Cable TV, phone, electric, water, natural gas...all classified as utilities...not internet access as it stands.

The Gov does not and can not choose what HBO, porn channels or Fox Network broadcasts...anymore than they can interfere with the internet. That is a first amendment issue.

Internet Providers will still be making money delivering access (like they do now)...like the electric company makes money delivering electricity...but the internet providers will not be able to squeeze the pipes to shake down content providers at the source.