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

originally posted by: Indigo5
Internet is a CONNECTION between you and some site. You can have super fast access and Time Warner can charge you for that...and absent Net Neutrality...they can also charge the site you visit..and if that site doesn't pay up...then your speedy internet access is meaningless when you visit that site.

This. To go back to my road analogy. You can drive at 35 mph to reach a fast food drive through but that speed limit doesn't change how fast McDonalds can process your order and get it to you. Getting the fast lane and being able to drive at 50mph or being poor and having to settle for 25mph, it's still on McDonalds to make your burger. You sit in line, and can go first but you still have to wait on them. Repealing Net Neutrality lets the company then give you a secondary drive through charge, and if you don't pay it they just hang onto your food until it's cold. But you'll eventually get it... then drive home in your 50 mph fast lane.

a reply to: neo96

Do you want a few elites to control the flow of information, or do you want our access to information, as individuals, to be free and equal?

- AB

Unfortunately, Net neutrality down fall is its name because of the ignorant masses.

They really should have simplified it and used politician tactics and called it 'Free Open Net'

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: seeker1963

Net neutrality is the current state of the internet.
Losing it means that each internet based business... Netflix, ATS, YouTube etc... will have to pay a fee in order to have the fastest speeds available. Big companies will be fine with this, but what about sites like ATS? Blogs? What if you want to start up your own web business selling guns that you print on your 3D printer? Do you think you can pay what YouTube can pay? No, you can't.

As of right now, you or I... anyone with internet access can enter the internet at the same speed as Google. Take away net neutrality and that ends.

That is what I thought it was about. So thank you and everyone else who explained it.

With that being said, if that is in FACT the way the net neutrality issue plays out, as far as protecting the "little guy" then I am all for it!

I just don't see the government going that way with the regulations though.

I remember when SkepticOverlord, put a post to go to the FCC website to sign a petition, which I did, hmmmm, maybe I am just confused?

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: beezzer
Apparently we should just love it because it has the words Net and Neutrality in the title.

Do you have a rationale as to why this is something the public shouldn't want? If you do even a very-small, minor, infinitesimal bit of research on the matter, you'll quickly discover that "Net Neutrality" was the term coined by independent websites, Internet content providers, and online stake-holders, not "the government."

I don't even know what the hell it is!!

I had no idea the net wasn't "neutral" all ready.

Not a fan of Obama, but he's right on this.

Ted Cruz is a loon, imho and wouldn't stand an iota of a chance against Hillary in 2016.

a reply to: beezzer

It IS neutral right now. The problem is there are folks with deeeeeeep pockets who DON'T want equal access to the internet. They want to divide it essentially into a "class system" where if you don't have deep pockets (that little start up charity or small business) and can't pay the big-boy fees for fast service from the providers (i.e. the upper tier - the "first class" treatment), then you are out of luck and relegated to the poor and unwashed, the "untouchable" class - as in no one will be able to touch your site because it is soooooo sloooooooooooowwwww.

peace,
AB

a reply to: beezzer

That's the thing, it is neutral right now. The administration wants to keep it that way.

Ted Cruz, an indentured servant formally known as a politician, is parroting the lines provided to him by his billionaire oligarch masters who want to change the landscape and create profit centers around slowing down some of the Internet, and speeding it up portions of it for content providers that pay more.

The result: sites like ATS will be slow, sites like FoxNews will be fast.

a reply to: beezzer

Right now the internet is neutral.
Ted Cruz doesn't want it to be neutral.
Ted Cruz wants the government to change the internet.
Ted Cruz wants the government to change the internet by carving it into different speed tiers.

I know the name "Net Neutrality" is boring..

But if you use the INTERENT...If you think the internet matters...you should care about this, because the internet itself will dramatically change once we let Internet Providers choose how fast you can access a site.

Think about the implications for news alone...One provider is slow and crashes, the other is super speedy...

People will obviously stop visiting the slow site in favor of the speedy one..

And hell, you can forget about internet start-ups. They have to come with mega-bucks and bow down to the media oligarchs before they can even launch.

I know it is boring...but it is important.

Again...John Oliver does a great job of summarizing it in a very entertaining way..

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: SkepticOverlord



John Oliver to the rescue:

NET NEUTRALITY

a reply to: neo96

Seems like you made an informed decision.

LULZ

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.

a reply to: Aazadan

Thank you for the rationale and the explanation.

I'm just skeptical I guess.

Anything coming from the mouth of government and having the words "peace", "patriot", neutral", usually involves an expense on my part, a decrease in privacy, or we're bombing someone.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: neo96
That I didn't want any government involvement with the net.

Then why do you agree with Cruz?

Already been answered.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: neo96
NEVER experienced a 'slow' down in the decacade I have had them.

You will experience slow downs if the FCC creates a tiered Internet. This is the crux of the issue.

a reply to: Lysergic

It really needs like a 4 panel comic strip.

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?

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.

Like the way it works now? You're for neutrality.

Want to consolidate everything into the hands of the biggest players sitting at choke points who can wring every dime out of it? Cruz is your guy.

Does Cruz even understand that? There's a question. I have my doubts.

a reply to: Kali74

Losing net neutrality means the government (The FCC) has expanded it's involvement with the internet.

Hmmm

The Federal Communications Commission is forming rules to regulate whether internet service providers can charge certain websites for faster speeds, or, conversely, block or limit those who don't pay. According to a Wall Street Journal report last Friday, the rules are so complicated that the FCC most likely won't finish them until the end of the year. Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

Well that doesn't sound very 'neutral' from the 'pro' net neutralty crowd.

On Monday, Obama called for the internet to be reclassified as a utility service. Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

That means price hikes.

The 'internet's is now a 'utitity' !