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

originally posted by: twoOMind
Contrary to what many have stated, networks don't currently treat "all packets equally" in order to improve latency and increase bandwith, it's called Traffic Shaping.

An overly simplistic example: if you're streaming a 1GB video and your neighbor wants to load a 1MB web page, his packets are going to be prioritized over yours to clear his demand from the network, meaning he doesn't have to wait for your traffic and you don't have to be slowed down as much by his traffic (packets) being interlaced with yours. If you both want access at the same time, there's going to be waiting/slow down either way. If his traffic can be cleared from the network in 30sec while your's will take 30min, you waiting an extra 30sec is more fair than him waiting an extra 30min.

Another reason for prioritizing packets other than performance: A doctor performing remote open heart surgery should have the benefit of lower latency by being higher priority than your streaming the latest episode of House of Cards.

Thank you, I wasn't even going to talk actual network traffic sense in this thread.

originally posted by: Bearack

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
It's so simple to understand but this thread is just the beginning of how it will be turned into confusion and republicans will say, " get the government off my Internet." And then corporations will swoop in and take away the freedoms we've enjoyed, break the Internet into tiered levels where you have to pay extra for access to certain sites. No more free and open internet.

The Republicans are going into a pretty tough election in 2016. If they win here there are going to be a lot of pissed off people, and people will remember for 2 years. Every website owner in the country will remember, and remind everyone they can. They do not want to win here, they just want to appear to put up a fight and then bring the issue up again in the future. Sadly, it looks like they may very well win.

I can say in my case that if they win, I'll have to shut down the forum I run. I'll have to shut down my private server. And I'll have to seriously change some software I'm writing and set it up to be sold only outside of the US.

Makes me wish we had a Pirate Party in the US. Issues like this prove that we need a few people in DC with some tech skills rather than them all being doctors, lawyers, and bureaucrats.

LOL, this post reminds me of the Alec Baldwin escapade about if Bush won the election. If the Pub's win the election in 2016, nothing will change... They are the same pig with merely different lipstick. Both parties may seem to have different platforms but this is merely to keep the country polarized so that they can continue to chip pieces of your individuality away.

You are 100% correct.

a reply to: greencmp

Watching idiocracy and now I understand why people here don't understand why net neutrality is good for the consumer.

Joe couldn't convince the people that Gatorade was not good for the crops because the Brawndo corporation told people that brawndo is what the plants crave.

So he told the people that he could talk to the plants and the plants said they wanted water and then they believed him.

So I'm going to change my strategy. I can talk to the internet and the internet says it wants net neutrality.



On a more serious note:

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 in this global economic medium.

originally posted by: yeahright
a reply to: greencmp

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

I'm hoping we can discern a difference between traffic shaping for network optimization, and extorting specific content contributors to pay more or have their content handled differently by a subscriber's ISP.

Maybe I'm hoping for too much.

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

His point was simply that the claims of so-called 'net neutrality' are actually non-existent and unrealizable. He is correct.

I am viewing this thread in the broader scope of free markets vs intervened markets and the seemingly obvious (to me anyway) truism that increased regulation is counterproductive.

We probably can agree that the handful of authorized service providers do not constitute a large enough set of participants to be truly called a competitive market but, that is a direct result of existing legislation.

Personally, I think all media should be unregulated including broadcasts of all forms.

originally posted by: interupt42
As a republican you should be for net neutrality to promote competition and free market principles in this global economic medium.

originally posted by: greencmp
Personally, I think all media should be unregulated including broadcasts of all forms.

In typical, Republican fashion, Ted Cruz makes it clear that he cares more about the well-being of THE CARRIERS and their profit and not so much about the people who are using the net.

Haven't seen a nicer example of Republican mind-set in ages.

His quote that Net Neutrality allegedly is "Obamacare for the Internet", as absurd as this comparison is, in some twisted way *implies* that it would mean a slower internet since "the government would be in charge" when it comes to speeds, content etc. - although of course everyone with half a brain knows this is nothing but a bold lie. Exactly the OPPOSITE will happen. Speeds will be throttled by carriers/corporates, not magically INCREASED when this would be in the hands of ISP/carriers.

While I am fortunate to be in Europe where we now HAVE A LAW THAT GUARANTEES NET NEUTRALITY I am sorry for you guys in the States. You are ruled by corporates, there is actually a decent chance that THEY will actually "win", otherwise this wouldn't be the America as it is today. I wish you luck tho.

a reply to: yeahright

Agreed that is why I had said "you should be"* . *"You" as the republican party

Note: I believe more in libertarian principles and side with republican ideals over the democrats due to lobbying, but this is what I have seen from the republicans.

1. The republicans talk about individual rights than pass the patriot act.

2. The republicans say they want a free market then they pick the winners and the loosers using tax payer money to bailout private corporations.

3. The republicans say they believe in state rights than they make it illegal for states to decide if they want to lable GMO products.

4. The Republicans say they wan't small government than go and create bigger gov't like Homeland Security.

So it does not surprise me that they are

Saying that they believe in a free market but than are for undoing net neutrality.

Now I know their are plenty republicans that are for Net Neutrality, but I got a sneaky suspicion the party (GOP) is going to make this a political issue for the next election and push net neutrality like Ted is doing as a anti free market thing.

The problem with that is that they successfully convinced the republicans that using tax payers money to pick the winners and the looser in the free market was a good thing.

So the Republican political cheerleaders are going to swallow his rhetoric in full and see net Neutrality as anti American.

The worst part is that the Democrats are talking in favor for Neutrality, but in reality they allowed it to be overthrown by continuing the revolving door between the FCC and the ISP they were suppose to regulate.

In the end Both party don't want a free market net neutrality internet. Thy say different things but their actions are one in the same. Any legislation passed in favor of net neutrality by either party will look like swiss cheese with holes all over the place.

originally posted by: Greywey
He was just saying that Net Neutrality would end up like Obamacare, why is that stupid?

Mr Ted Cruz obviously found the previous and still existing "health care" (/sarcasm) system in the US excellent. A health care system where a hospital or doctor can charge someone hundreds of thousands of dollars, putting them before the choice whether to go bankrupt or to die.

Obviously, Ted Cruz thinks this is an excellent model also for the Internet ...

He doesn't want the government to regulate the net, he wants the carriers to regulate the net. (In other words: Money). Worse, he sells it like this would actually be better....

originally posted by: yeahright

originally posted by: greencmp
Personally, I think all media should be unregulated including broadcasts of all forms.

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

But the irony is, without the rule (regulation) preventing a virtual monopoly from doing whatever the hell they want, you have ISPs sitting at choke points making decisions about who plays and who doesn't. Without the rule (regulation) preventing it, they're going to go after the money and every small entity that the Internet was set up to nurture and provide for is choked and withers and dies. Not because Comcast et al NEEDS the cash, they just want it and are in a position to take it. If they're allowed.

Look out there at that jungle with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast... You want some wild west law of the jungle unfettered playing field with those impossibly imposing greedy bastards? Unregulated environments sound so... American. Until you realize it's Lord of the Flies out there and it ain't gonna be Verizon with their head on a pike.

The Bill of Rights are rules. Remember, some regulations guarantee good things.

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

The Bill of Rights is a strictly proscriptive set of protections for individuals against a presumed and inevitably corrupt and overreaching government. They guarantee us no good things but, instead, they attempt to restrict law enforcement, legislative and regulatory abuse.

They are negative rights as all rights are, not positive rights.

originally posted by: beezzer
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.

Generally speaking "control" over the internet won't be easy since it's essentially really only a protocol describing how computers communicate with each other. (Of course there are things where the gvt can [and did] control it to some extent, but let's not get into too much technical detail here).

So..basically.... a bunch of computers connected via routers/switches to each other.....is "the internet", the rest is only a matter of scale.

But...if we're speaking of the government "taking control" of the internet...do you think it's BETTER if the corporates take control of it? (As Cruz and anyone being anti net neutrality actually want?)

Right now, the net, speeds etc. are NOT regulated, a net neutrality law would merely "regulate" that it cannot be regulated, if you see what I am saying. It's really the exact opposite of "regulation" in that sense.

You realize that giving up net neutrality and actually have corporates "take control" is a MUCH worse scenario as the net being "regulated" by the government? Much, much worse.

originally posted by: greencmp
They guarantee us no good things but, instead, they attempt to restrict law enforcement, legislative and regulatory abuse.

originally posted by: yeahright

originally posted by: greencmp
They guarantee us no good things but, instead, they attempt to restrict law enforcement, legislative and regulatory abuse.

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

sounds like good things, to me.

Semantics, man.

We're obviously going to, for reasons mysterious to me, disagree. I think a rule/regulation/whatever requiring net neutrality is a good thing. Others do not.

Here's hoping some miracle occurs and it works out for all of us. With Big Ted driving the bus, I'm not counting on it.

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

They are not regulations and while that may at first seem like a semantic argument, upon closer inspection, they are actually anti regulations which is in fact the diametric opposite of what many people erroneously attribute to them.

At the most basic level I think we all want the same thing, we just disagree that it is desirable for the state to arbitrarily intervene in voluntary commerce (or mandate involuntary commerce a la the ACA).

Additionally, I fear that this would be yet another step toward the revocation of the right to free speech in content which even this place violates on a regular basis. The difference is, you folks own it so you have the right to control your own business in the fashion that you desire come hell or high water.

originally posted by: Bearack
LOL, this post reminds me of the Alec Baldwin escapade about if Bush won the election. If the Pub's win the election in 2016, nothing will change... They are the same pig with merely different lipstick. Both parties may seem to have different platforms but this is merely to keep the country polarized so that they can continue to chip pieces of your individuality away.

Where did I say anything about things changing? I said that if the Republicans (which is actually the Comcast and Verizon plan) get their way with Net Neutrality it will impact me negatively. I also said that it would effect who people vote for. Nowhere did I mention one being preferable to the other, besides saying having Net Neutrality is preferable to not having it.

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.
So while people here keep telling me I don't understand the concept, I do, I just don't believe in government price fixing.

You're mistaken on this. Under Net Neutrality there are still speed tiers. Nowhere does it state that everyone has to have the same speed. What it states is that packets of data are treated equally, what this means is that the server processes all packets without delaying or altering specific ones. People with higher speed connections can still have more packets processed by the server. It also means that if you're getting a fast internet connection, you will have a fast connection to the website you're trying to access. The ISP can't goto the website owner and say that in addition to their connection fee they have to pay a separate fee to make their website more accessible or usuable. Net Neutrality means that the customer actually gets the speeds they pay for.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
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.

Except we have proven cases of where Comcast is doing just that. Not only do they slow down traffic to some websites but on others they alter their webpages as it's being sent back to the user.

Net Neutrality doesn't ration bandwidth but repealing it discourages use and lets the ISP's get away with not upgrading the network for a while longer.

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 don't know how many times I have to say this. Net Neutrality is the most minimalistic set of regulations possible. It can be written in one sentence. Repealing Net Neutrality is hundreds of pages worth of new laws.

originally posted by: greencmp
Additionally, I fear that this would be yet another step toward the revocation of the right to free speech in content which even this place violates on a regular basis. The difference is, you folks own it so you have the right to control your own business in the fashion that you desire come hell or high water.

Like the corporations that are using the weakened laws now to prevent access to content at the request of government or other corporations? Like the corporations that are altering webpage content because they don't want traffic going to certain webpages?

Net Neutrality at it's core says that ISP's are service providers. They don't get to impact the content providers. Think of them as the road between your house and the business you want to goto. The road owner doesn't get the authority to dictate to the business owner how their business is run, and they don't get to put up a roadblock preventing access to that business because the business owner won't pay additional money. Repealing Net Neutrality allows for those things.

originally posted by: yeahright

originally posted by: interupt42
As a republican you should be for net neutrality to promote competition and free market principles in this global economic medium.

Right.

Maybe in 1964, but those guys are long gone. We're left with the venal idiots (willful or pretender) who have no problem denigrating science and common sense, if that's what they think the (even dumber) majority of likely voters wants to hear.

GOP? DC or the rest of the USA?


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.

a reply to: Indigo5

Yes, why can't we have rules without giving any control away? It seems once the FCC gets a chance to put in rules than the right to govern those rules gives them the right to control the internet. People are wishful if they think the Gov would be "Neutral" about anything.....the FCC has a history of censorship, fines, kicking people off the air, revoking licenses and a love for three strikes and your out mentality that gives this move a CISPA in disguise award for sheer marketing genius, give them the marketed term they want and then get your foot in the door and claim the right to revoke internet addresses for obscene content, fine for willful posting of non bona fide news from non bona fide news organizations, etc. It reeks of a slight of hand trick by Obama and the FCC.....he wrecked healthcare and now it seems he maybe trying to wreck the internet....amazing how much the government actually hates freedom in this country. And to those upset about one company....then I guess you want one government controlling it instead? Be careful what you wish for you just might get it. When does the government ever let in competition or get out done by technological competition, almost never cause they can refuse to allow for patents and they can litigate new technology to be against the law or classified, a corporation has far less power in that regard, not that they are powerless, but if you put the government in front of the corp you have just made a monopoly more or less, by putting the FCC in front of Google or Comcast or ATT, you put another layer and shield of protection for these companies from losing control of their business, as it stands right now anyone with a decent technology or funds to implement it might upset and undo the current balance of power....but it you put the FCC in front of these groups....you'll never know that technology existed nor ever hear about it.

Also one other note....anything I posted in quotes was attributed as not being my own words, you seem only interested in the source as to make some kind of disparaging remarks about the source, you can use google to find out about Howard Stern as well as CBS Superbowl incident. Regardless you use the term "public" to describe what you want the Internet to be regarded as then you use the same term to imply it only applies to TV or radio but not Internet...well yeah, duh, but if you put the FCC in charge of the Net and call the net a "public utility" but conflate it with water or electricity, you also make a mistake cause it's not electricity nor water...and when you can't pay property taxes what happens you water and power get turned off. Now you have conflated the net with property taxes, good going. Keep it up and you'll be screaming for internet taxes for "neutrality"....this maybe the problem, this term was tested and tried in a very business oriented manner with polling and public input as to what sounds better than CISPA....most of the people calling for Neutrality seem to be extremely non-neutral with regard to politics and political parties, I hear nothing but fear about businesses and conservatives, that doesn't sound neutral nor intelligent, just political. Who's to say Google and ATT, Comcast actually really want these regulations to lock them into power? I would think this would never come up if they didn't want it. The way to stop bundling maybe to attack it at the source, not on some speculative possibility or just one attempt on Netflix. The way you stop it maybe through regulating the TV industry not the Internet. But they can only regulate cable and TV right now, in order to gain more power these same companies need their captured regulators to gain power over their internet competition, so they brand their CISPA like takeover as "neutral" as they hear you and others are begging for it, the same way Patriots were begging for the Patriot Act to take away unneeded Constitutional amendments.

originally posted by: Indigo5

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.

Thank you for pointing that out. I'd like to see if the numbers change now that Obama and Ted Cruz throw there names in. the "if ____is for it i'm against it" crowd could show up.

originally posted by: bubbabuddha
a reply to: Indigo5

Yes, why can't we have rules without giving any control away? It seems once the FCC gets a chance to put in rules than the right to govern those rules gives them the right to control the internet. People are wishful if they think the Gov would be "Neutral" about anything.....the FCC has a history of censorship, fines, .

Hold-up...check my posts-in-thread...you are repeating old arguments as is apt to happen in long threads.

Internet as utility has no mechanism for control or censorship.

Does the 1st amendment guaranteeing free speech give the gov control over speech?

I can go on, but it's been researched and covered.

originally posted by: mahatche

originally posted by: Indigo5

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.

Thank you for pointing that out. I'd like to see if the numbers change now that Obama and Ted Cruz throw there names in. the "if ____is for it i'm against it" crowd could show up.

The polls are post Ted and Obama comments.