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

a reply to: beezzer

But before I get beaten down any further, if government is going to be in charge of freeing the internet through regulation, who is on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Communications, Technology, and the Internet?

Good question.

I wonder when the law will come that forces people to buy internet service or be fined for not.

a reply to: beezzer

That is not news?? The GOP stacked all the committees with people who loathe there field of oversight.

Hell..The CHAIRMAN of the FCC, Tom Wheeler is a former Cable Industry Lobbyist!

All that is required for them to turn over the internet to billionaire oligarchs is for the public to sit silent and confused.

Ted Cruz and his...ahem...foot soldiers ...seem to be doing a good job of that aim.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: beezzer

But before I get beaten down any further, if government is going to be in charge of freeing the internet through regulation, who is on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Communications, Technology, and the Internet?

Good question.

I wonder when the law will come that forces people to buy internet service or be fined for not.

That will happen about the same time you stop cheerfully carrying the water for the Ted Cruz's of the world.

a reply to: Indigo5

Ted Cruz wins.

Even if he loses, he wins, because he'll be on the oversight committee for your net neutrality!

But I'm the idiot. I'm a Tea Party jerk and I don't like this one bit.

pfft!

YAY Government!

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: beezzer

But before I get beaten down any further, if government is going to be in charge of freeing the internet through regulation, who is on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Communications, Technology, and the Internet?

Good question.

I wonder when the law will come that forces people to buy internet service or be fined for not.

That will happen about the same time you stop cheerfully carrying the water for the Ted Cruz's of the world.

Better than carrying the admins water.

After all a' free, and open' internets' just makes it easier for Big Brother to spy on us.

Let me give some real-world context here, from the point of view of an independent online content provider. Here's a simplified breakdown of the landscape.



Layer One
AboveTopSecret.com is hosted at SoftLayer

Either for dedicated servers or "cloud" servers, we have laundry list of options for the speed of our servers, and the size of the "pipe" from our server to SoftLayer's network. The size of that "pipe" is very similar to the Mps choices consumers have for their home connection -- more Mps, the faster the content. We pay for the largest possible "pipe" to SoftLayer's network. We also pay quite a bit for very-fast computers.

So, as a content provider, we're already paying a premium the best-quality, fastest connection to the network.


Layer Two
SoftLayer connects to Level3

SoftLayer manages connections to several backbone providers, Level3 is one of them, we'll stick with one. Part of our decision on where to host ATS was/is SoftLayer's great-big-pipe to Level3. SoftLayer pays a premium to Level3 for a big-fast pipe. We pay a premium (over other hosting choices) in selecting SoftLayer, they're a bit more expensive that some alternatives.

So, as a content provider, we're paying a second premium for a quality hosting company.

As a hosting company, our provider is already paying a premium for a quality connection to the Internet backbone.


Layer Three
Comcast Consumer Internet

Comcast maintains big-fat pipes with Level3. They pay for those pipes in the same way that SoftLayer does -- it's access to the Internet backbone. Consumers -- in theory -- pay Comcast for access to the Internet in various tiers of speed, the faster the speed, the more the cost.

So, as a consumer paying for fast Internet, you're already paying a premium for a quality connection to Layers One and Two above.



What travels from Layer One (ATS) to Layer Three (you) are packets. Each packet contains the data necessary to construct a web page -- or view a video, post on Facebook, etc.



Net Neutrality

The concept of Net Neutrality want's to ensure that all packets are treated equally. As has been seen with the Comcast extortion of Netflix, and the eventual deal, there are times right now when all packets are not treated equally.

Reclassifying the Internet as a utility is the most rapid solution (uses existing legislation/regulation) to fixing a growing problem.



The FCC's Hybrid Solution

The FCC's so-called "hybrid" approach proposes limited regulation on the backbone, the Level3 portion of the second layer above. There does need to be some stabilization here, but not as bad as the consumer end.

BUT, the hybrid approach places almost no regulation on Layer Three, the connection to consumers, and even encourages multiple lanes of speed depending on which content providers pay a premium for that speed.



So, even though ATS is paying a premium for speed, our hosting company is paying a premium for speed, and you're also paying a premium for speed; the FCC's approach would allow Comcast to slow-down your connection to ATS, if we don't pay an additional premium to them. Verizon, Time Warner, and Comcast have already indicated they will be creating at least two tiers of speed if the FCC's proposal is adopted.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Indigo5

Ted Cruz wins.

Even if he loses, he wins, because he'll be on the oversight committee for your net neutrality!

But I'm the idiot. I'm a Tea Party jerk and I don't like this one bit.

pfft!

YAY Government!

Nope...If it is classified as a Utility it doesn't fall under Ted's Committee..it falls under
The Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications
And Ted aint on it

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: WhiteAlice

Nope.

Don't have it 'backwards' just operating from a different defintion than the prevailing opinions in the thread.

The concept of 'net neutrailty' I was under the assumption was government hands off of the net.

That is not what others want.

What they want to do is mock a guy who said something in response to the executive branch's version of 'net neutraiity' meaning changing the net to utilities, then gets to tax and regulate the hell out of it.

Well, then your definition of net neutrality is wrong.

Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier.

en.wikipedia.org...

That is net neutrality as defined by the individual who coined the term. Using another definition outside of the one that is generally accepted is simply going to muddy the waters. Make your own term for what you're talking about for clarity's sake.

In terms of taxes, taxing the internet is already something that is a no go. The Internet Tax Freedom Act brought in under the Clinton administration basically bars the taxing of the internet (but allows for sales tax on online purchases for those living in states with sales tax so can't escape that). ITFA has been renewed every year since its first passage.
www.forbes.com...

Net neutrality, therefore, does not guarantee taxes being imposed on the internet (outside of sales taxes on purchases). There is a separate law blocking the imposition of such a tax with a long history of it continuously being extended. Regulation would be essentially making public an ISP's provision of bandwidth to everyone to assure that they aren't putting the squeeze on somebody (like Netflix).

Cruz is a good example of what a politician should not be. What is sad is that so many think he is what one should be.

Just my opinion though.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

Well, then your definition of net neutrality is wrong.

I don't think so.

Think I have the right definition of neutrality.

Others have it wrong.

neu·tral·i·ty noun \nü-ˈtra-lə-tē, nyü-\ : the quality or state of not supporting either side in an argument, fight, war, etc. : the quality or state of being neutral

www.merriam-webster.com...

Clearly this is what is meant by 'neutrality' today:

www.cnet.com...

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

In other words, extortion.

originally posted by: neo96
Think I have the right definition of neutrality.
Others have it wrong.

No. You're misreading the dictionary.

"the quality or state of not supporting either side in an argument" -- in the case of the Internet, those on either side of the argument are the content providers and the consumer ISP's. See above.

There have been behind the scenes rumblings for the past couple of years at ISP's anyway. Once, long ago, ISP's got away with charging by the minute after their set number of minutes was used ( Think AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy ) and people paid a LOT of overuse fees.

This led to a vast number of local ISP's which would charge for unlimited service. Quickly the telcom giants picked up on this strategy, stole it, and put the mom and pop ISP's out of business. And life was good for about fifteen years.

That is until Telecoms were reminded of the "pay as you go by the minute" model through their smart phone divisions. Seeing that consumers were willing to pay out of the proverbial nose for the convenience and novelty of on the go Internet got the Telecoms thinking "Hey, remember back in the day when companies could name their price for home Internet and people would pay it? Why aren't we doing that again?"

Tiered is step one. Step two will be additional charges for "exclusive content". Step three will be limited minutes before being throttled into 9,600 baud-land for the duration of the month.

That is the consumer end of it.

Companies like Verizon want internet regs lay out in a way to help them make the most money which is most likely not in the average person's best interest. When has big business ever leaned toward the consumer interest over profits.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Thank you for laying it out so clearly in real-world terms, SO.

I realize that some folks see the word "Regulation" in a governmental context and think that automatically equates to BAD.

I see regulations that BALANCE the POWER between us "little people" and giant corporations as being a good thing - a protection, not a restriction or mess of red tape. Its really only bad for the people (read Shareholders) who wanted a bigger slice of pie.

I would hate to see sites like ATS, and the many smaller sites, blogs, information sources out there moving through sludge because the Big Fish want another bite.

- AB

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: neo96
Think I have the right definition of neutrality.
Others have it wrong.

No. You're misreading the dictionary.

"the quality or state of not supporting either side in an argument" -- in the case of the Internet, those on either side of the argument are the content providers and the consumer ISP's. See above.

Once those 'tighter' rules get written by the FCC ( they are writing with little or congressional oversite) costs will go up. They will get passed on to the content providers from the ISP'S.

Neutral is the act of doing nothing.

Well they are doing quite a lot.

Can we please, please enact some IQ tests for Congress? Please?

I just did some background reading to see what this was all about and to understand where Cruz was coming from before jumping on the bandwagon. It seems to be his main case is against government regulations of any kind so he comes out swinging a sword at anything he perceives to be government-set standards, right or wrong.

In this case, the government oversight actually seems necessary to protect internet equality. Cruz is going off half cocked, it looks like, by yelling, 'Keep the government out of my affairs!' without realizing sometimes government oversight can be helpful like food quality regulations, etc.

I'd feel very foolish if I were him.

What do you expect? One of Ted Cruz's biggest campaign donors is Comcast.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

The anti-Obama-everything party did well. Keep the momentum going.

In a staged election process where both parties yeah the momentum is grand isn't it? it wont last though judging the facts that McCain is going to be the member of the armed services committee. And such.