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

a reply to: beezzer

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

Likewise.

Don't think anyone will disagree with the idea the internet should be 'free'.

It's the practical application of that theory I am have problems with.

If people want something to get screwed up worse than it already is?

Let government 'fix' it.

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?

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.

No..those that did build the infrastructure make money from the CUSTOMERS...and they have made their money back a gazillion times over....from the CUSTOMER - END USER. Now, having largely monopolized the industry, they want to shake down the CONTENT SUPPLIERS.

YOU pay for that infrastructure that brings you electricity...now Imagine your lights dimming and power outages...cuz your electric company is shaking down the power plant as well as you.

a reply to: neo96

What many don't appear to understand is the level of abuse that could happen if government took control of the internet.

We already have a GOP House and Senate, there's a chance that we'll have a GOP POTUS also.

So these people crying for more government control of the internet will be weeing themselves when a draconian GOP president decides he doesn't like MSNBC's webpage, or Daily Ko's is getting too rude.

Obama isn't the threat.

Government abuse is. I guess the "potential" for abuse, to word it specifically, since so many get annoying when words am not korrect.

Christ.

ALL OF THESE PEOPLE ARE ACTORS.

Team A seduces people who agree with 90% of their policies and then goes bat# on X issue causing mass cognitive dissonance and reduction of group power.

Team B seduces people who agree with 90% of their policies and then goes bat# on Y issue causing mass cognitive dissonance and reduction of group power.

Team C, for whom representatives of Team A and Team B actually report, then consolidates power in the chaos.

ORDER OUT OF CHAOS. They don't even hide it.

Christ.

"Hur hur I'm helping".

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: neo96


So these people crying for more government control of the internet will be weeing themselves when a draconian GOP president decides he doesn't like MSNBC's webpage, or Daily Ko's is getting too rude.

How has that scenario played out with cable television? Which has been under title two since it's creation?

And if the scenario above happened, I think the average Joe would be more concerned with the new GOP Government apparently abolishing the first amendment than the implications of Title 2 of the telecommunications act.

Fear monger much?

In a nutshell, this fight is between content providers such as cable companies who reap ungodly profits from providing you heavily commercialized and unwatchable boob-tube and on the other side are internet content providers that include everything from youtube to ATS to bloggers to anyone just trying to get a message out. The internet is a huge threat to cable company profits as content makers turn away from cable TV and the cable companies either want a legislative "ma bell" monopoly over internet access or they want to create a pinch point in the market where they can extort a toll and bar entrance of new content providers. The same kind of thing has already been done with the old standard oil mini monopolies who have used oil refinering as a choke point in the market and its the reason why we have $75 barrel oil and price at the pump is still $2.75 instead of $1.50 where it should be. IMO oil refining should also be a public utility because it merely provides a service.

Anyone fearing draconian government should fear the downfall of net neutrality, if you say something or do something they do not like, they will simply turn off your access, similar to how ICANN is being used to target sites only this will work against sites and people.

If you want to know who the head of the FCC really is, and get a primer on net neutrality, then watch this video its hilarious www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: neo96


So these people crying for more government control of the internet will be weeing themselves when a draconian GOP president decides he doesn't like MSNBC's webpage, or Daily Ko's is getting too rude.

How has that scenario played out with cable television? Which has been under title two since it's creation?

And if the scenario above happened, I think the average Joe would be more concerned with the new GOP Government apparently abolishing the first amendment than the implications of Title 2 of the telecommunications act.

Fear monger much?

You're the one that wants to run into the arms of a GOP led Congress with control of the internet.

Ironically, I do not.

I guess you trust the GOP more than I do, which is amusing, actually.

If I'm fear-mongering, then it's only because I am all to familiar with the capacity of over-reach from the US Government.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: seeker1963

This is part of the Game. The Democrats are just as much in the hands of the Telecom Oligopoly as the Republicans.

In the end they will pass regulations in their favor and net neutrality will be just a word . They have an open door policy between the Telecom and the FCC.

Its not if they will kill net neutrality but when.
www.opensecrets.org...

Like SO said we are screwed.

It seems I read sentiment like this a lot.

Oh this is happening, its both side. we are screwed.

I cant decide if it is the work of shills trying to be sure that anyone who may have an inclination to help is sure that there is nothing they can do? Or if the people are so weak minded and weak willed that they can not even try and have a positive attitude?

Lets put it this way, EVERYTHING NEW EVER, was NEW and not done before.

So everything new, paper, pencils, homes, computers, democrats, cars, everything, someone said, it wont work, there is nothing we can do.

But someone said "I dont care what can be done, I am doing it" and they did it.

You see it is the human beings ability to create something from something else, that makes us able to do anytthing we dont give up on.

Did you hear that, anything we dont give up on. GO to the moon.. anything.

But for you, its to hard for us to identify criminals in the government and do something about it.

Are you so scarred?

a reply to: Indigo5
Laughable.

You make the same naive mistake most do in these discussions, you assume that infrastructure is a giant cash cow for the company that installed it.

I guess that is why the government makes so much money off of roadworks!

The only reason that companies installed infrastructure was so that they could possibly profit by having access to potential clients that they previously had no access too.

You give everybody the chance to equally access those clients, and the costs of installing, maintaining, and upgrading infrastructure quickly overshadow any of the potential profits involved.

As for the infrastructure that brings me electricity, yes, the owner of the lines does have absolute rights. It doesn't matter which 'provider' I get my electricity from, if I don't play by the infrastructure owner's rules (access, monitoring, etc.)...I get cut off. And, yes, they currently 'shake down' the power generating company...yearly in fact. They have the generator and the customer by the balls...and, no I have no inclination to pay to install my own lines from source to use.

a reply to: beezzer

What many don't appear to understand is the level of abuse that could happen if government took control of the internet.

Oh yeah.

Like the IRS, and the DOJ, to journaiists being targeted for people saying what they don't like.

Some of us fully understand the ramifications.

originally posted by: neo96
In order for it to be 'fair' they have to REGULATE it.

That argument is a fallacy.

In order to allow the Internet to be unfair, just as many (if not more) regulations are needed. Tim Wu, the legal professor who first coined the term "net neutrality" in 2003, sees the need for far more rules/laws/regulations on the Internet in a multiple-tiered scenario suggested by the FCC, than as a utility.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Fallacy ?

I don't see it that way since someone just called for 'net neutral' from the oval office with 'tighter' rules.

Which means more regulation.

It's been said before, but I feel it bears repeating because it seems some don't get it.

Net neutrality is how the internet works right now. You type in a web address and the page loads depending on your connection speed. Everybody for neutrality wants to keep it that way. Anybody against neutrality wants to make it so some websites load faster because they pay the ISP's more money. Which will create a 2+ tier system where those with money can pay to make their sites load fast and the rest are relegated to a slower speed which might mean less visitors/customers/users.

That's really all it come's down too. Do you support keeping the internet the way it is now or inserting useless regulations to change the way it works?

On top of that, some cable/internet companies already operate under Title 2 regulations depending on the area involved. I know I read it somewhere, probably here on ATS, but I'll do some searching after this post and add links I find.

a reply to: thov420

You know, some of us just want a solution that works for today AND tomorrow.

The current legislation is a vote getter for today, with zero thought put into how things will be managed tomorrow.

If they remove the mechanisms for the infrastructure providers to receive added benefit for being the actual infrastructure provider, nobody is going to do the infrastructure.

If they continue to allow infrastructure providers to bend all competition over the barrel, we are going to end up with a monopolistic provider.

The question is how do we prevent both of those outcomes? How do we set up a system that encourages infrastructure growth, while encouraging competition on that infrastructure?

This is an extremely complex issue, that is being 'dumbed down' in a vain attempt to garner votes!

Don't fall for it. Demand better.

a reply to: Indigo5

Yes, how has it played out with cable?

Is your cable any more free with the government in charge of it?

How much choice do you have with your cable providers?

Did the government do anything to break up that monopoly that the big telecoms have over your cable in many areas of the country?

If not, than why do you think this will make it any different? In reality, you are just letting the FED get its greedy fingers into the pot, too, and they will tax you on top of you having to pay your same big telecom for the privilege of an Internet that will now likely never get a whole lot faster than what you already have.

I agree with Cruz - the Internet should not run at the speed of Government. It should run several steps ahead of it.

Net neutrality is THE First Amendment argument of our generation. The fact that he compares it to "Obamacare" is no accident - he is trying to foster hatred by proxy. Neuter the Internet and you will neuter free speech as we know it. Damned politicians are desperate to kill the culture that manages to out all of their faux paus and dirty laundry faster than they can spin it.

If you side with Cruz on this, you are certainly no friend of mine.

a reply to: peck420

That's a good point and why some cities have decided to make their own broadband internet access, i think I read Boulder, CO is one. Set it up as an actual public utility instead of a business for profit, but the big cable companies are fighting that as much as they can.

a reply to: Hefficide

If you put the net in control of government in the form of a utility, then (in effect) Cruz will be part of the party in charge of the internet.

Now I don't want that and I'm a hatin' evil conservative!

a reply to: thov420
I agree with that kind of solution, and I hate the fact that the ISP's can even fight it.

My province finished installing a fiber network, across most of the province, in 2005.

ISP's started fighting the day the project got approval (let alone when it was built), and here we are 20 years later, finally starting to get the big ISP's in their place, and parity across a public resource.

May Boulder have better luck!

a reply to: beezzer

Do you complain about the electric/natural gas/phone company having the government in control? No matter what you say/how much electric/gas you use, the government can't just arbitrarily come in and shut you off or lower your service. That's what net neutrality would protect.