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: 9
140
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Net Neutrality in it's purest form could be written on one sheet of paper, with no restrictions on content, only on how data can be processed.

There's part of the broader problem.

For the near-future, we only have two legislative choices being presented. The FCC's modification to existing legislation/regulation to define tiered systems, or reclassification as a Title II utility.

There are only a few barely-heard voices (none in the government) offering a third new Internet classification as the better option -- which it is.




posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Actually I prefer the don't do a damn thing to the internet, leave it as is. But, exercising my brain cells, I realize the major cable corporations that are our ISPs are not going to allow that to happen. They've sued the FCC in order to gain this tier system, they also lobby their asses off to get politicians to support them, enter Ted Cruz and his deliberate baiting with the Obamacare comparison. And you went baaaahing like a good little boy.


Nope.

Remember who controls Congress.

It's you that should be weeping.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I REALLY hope this bozo runs for President. We could use the laughs.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: thov420




After all those comments, the FCC still might balk and side with the big corps/lobbyists. What is the point of having a public forum if you are just going to do what you want anyways, regardless how the American public feels.


I'm no quitter nor I'm I'm giving up, but I'm also a realist and it brings me no pleasure to see how unlikely anything is going to change.

Until the majority of people see that they can't expect a corrupt system to fix itself , nothing will change.

People need to stop their Party from talking about the symptoms : (economy,healthcare,gay marriage, racial tension,SS, medicare, global warming,Oil,immigration, etc) and DEMAND that they only talk and take action in regards to lobbying and corruption reform in congress. Until than the lobbyist will continue to do as they please.


edit on 311130America/ChicagoMon, 10 Nov 2014 15:31:22 -0600up3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist
You ask for an example, then reject the one provided.


So, in essence, your "that's how capitalism works" statement seems to support the notion that it's okay for the US to have some of the slowest Internet speeds of all industrial nations? That's just capitalism?


You don't seen to understand the core realities here.


The US is the 8th fastest in the world with S. Korea being number one. Difference from the US and the top 7 is that they do not have the land mass to cover like here in the US. S. Korea could quite literally fit comfortably into the state of Iowa with elbow room to spare.

All net neutrality is, is nothing more than another form of distribution of wealth. Taking higher band widths which people are willing to pay for and either forcing the price down to those who could not afford it or merely driving those speeds down to those levels of the cheaper band width. At that point, what incentive is it for companies to try and drive innovation across a huge footprint when the incentive to do so is gone?



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
anyone agains't net neutrality like getting throttled....


I'll let myself out



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bearack
All net neutrality is, is nothing more than another form of distribution of wealth.

That statement is on par with Ted Cruz's stupid.



Taking higher band widths which people are willing to pay for and either forcing the price down to those who could not afford it or merely driving those speeds down to those levels of the cheaper band width.

That statement has nothing to do with net neutrality.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Trouble is we have been for many years! Has Google just shut up about losing Net Neutrality? Didn't Mr. Murdock just settle some suit against Google?

edit on 10-11-2014 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Well, I've said my piece. I've learned a bit, so thanks everyone.

I formally surrender on this topic though.

You all win.

I was wrong.

Let the government monitor/change it, let the government make it a utility. Nothing bad will ever happen because government never does anything wrong or bad.

I will humbly back off and silently root for net neutrality or whatever law/regulation government finally calls it.

It'll probably be "Net Neutrality for Freedom, Jesus, Liberty, Constitution."



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Bearack

See the problem isn't with people willing to pay for a faster connection. It's with companies HAVING to pay more for the same connection they already have or get sent to the back of the bus and getting a slower connection. None of this should affect the customer pricing models but with content providers like Netflix, ATS, Youtube, etc having to pay for regular/fast lane access to their customers.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

See I think this is where the divide happens, I don't want the government to change anything, only keep it the way it is now. What they migfht do with some regulatory power is a whole different yet related topic.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: thov420

It about an ISP's own version of the internet. Not so different than a cable TV package.

The open internet ended the minute Verizon said it should be closed! They won a lawsuit that forced a rule change. Blame Verizon and their cronies in office and behind the gavel!



edit on 10-11-2014 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

Caveat 2: When we don't have actual data, we just make assumptions. Great again! We are going to assume that everything that came yesterday is irrelevant because we want to make a point TODAY!


It's interesting you saying that, since I'm coming from a different tack about Cruz's motive, and just using your words in another way. Thing is, what you say above applies in true form to what publishers/newspapers do on a day to day basis. They set their headline for the next day rightly or wrongly which happens often enough, they won't mind getting the headline wrong in the aftermath, what they do not like is the headline being wrong before say, the paper even hits the street, with the internet that happens so often these days and makes them feel sheepish to say the least. The same thing is happening in Government, they publish stuff that is old hat and wrong even before it hits the street, or even the internet for that matter. Governments don't like that either, it fecks up all the prepared propaganda big time.
Simple message is, mess with the internet, you mess with the people.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
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?


God help me. You are talking about the FTC, the federal trade commission regulates monopolies.

Net Neutrality is before the FCC, Federal Communications Commission.

Aside from the Perryesque confusion, are you advocating for a more robust and active Federal Trade Commission?

Nevermind...red herring territory.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Oh I understand what's involved here. You see a crisis looming, and wish to see the Federal government given more power to regulate and (in theory) prevent the problem.

In my opinion, you are over-estimating the problem and looking to the wrong place for a solution. How many people in the US are dissatisfied with the speed of available internet connections? I don't hear much griping about it in developed regions. That might change if more Americans knew what hi-speed was like overseas, and began to demand better service for their money.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: beezzer

See I think this is where the divide happens, I don't want the government to change anything, only keep it the way it is now. What they migfht do with some regulatory power is a whole different yet related topic.


I'm not just looking at what is going to happen now, but what's going to happen the year after and the year after that.

Not wanting the government to change anything is a pipe dream.

Here's how it went down.

Government wanted control of the internet.

So they used lobbyists to push for a tiered system, knowing that people would fight it.

Then they got a guy like Cruz to come in and say how terrible net neutrality is, knowing all along that Cruz will probably be on the damned FCC Committee over-seeing the new regulations!

*Shazam!*

People run to government because of the evil greedy corporations, thus giving government carte blanche over internet regulation.

Easy-peasy.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Bearack




All net neutrality is, is nothing more than another form of distribution of wealth

Is that you Mr. Cruz ?




At that point, what incentive is it for companies to try and drive innovation across a huge footprint when the incentive to do so is gone?


Why is the incentive gone with net neutrality?

Also Ask Google why they drove innovation? Google is for net neutrality and they provided fast , cheap, throttled , unlimited access within its first year of service where the telecom oligopoly (Att,Verizon,Comcast) were behind innovation despite being in the industry for multiple decades?

Speaking of incentive, was it Comcast that lead the online streaming technologies or netflix? So why would a company such as netflix want to innovate knowing that comcast will only come behind them and steal their customers by force? Without net neutrality comcast can and will start its own streaming service and provide second tier speed service purposely to netflix and put them out of business.




edit on 131130America/ChicagoMon, 10 Nov 2014 16:13:53 -0600000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
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!


In as much as the government is in control of what you say because it guarantees free speech.

Guaranteeing that content providers, bloggers et al don't need to pay a ransom to "speak" does not, in any way give the government control over that speech.

Absent action...the IP Providers will own the same..

Not complicated, but there seems to be some ideological gymnastics on this thread to tow a uniquely horrific party line.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5



And the IRS is impartial and doesn't look at political bias.

And the Justice Department is impartial and doesn't look at political bias.

*I'm going to go plant a Rainbow tree and see if I can grow a unicorn!*



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I'd rather have the Government, which is made up of elected officials, in charge of the Internet, than private enterprise. We can grouse all we want about whether or not the Government works for us, but at least when we have the Government being in charge, we have a semblance of control, compared to Corporate oligarchy.

Let's not forget that "The Government" means "The People". We should start voting people in that represent US, not Corporate Interests.

Just sayin'.



new topics

top topics



 
140
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join