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

a reply to: Hefficide

How many times has the Internet busted a story that the MSM then had egg on their face because they refused to cover it?

You put the government in charge of the 'net and they can then start to regulate what you see on it ... you know, like those embarrassing stories.

How many times have we heard them opine that Internet bloggers aren't proper journalists lately? Do you want any part of the government anywhere near tampering with the effectiveness of the Internet as a communications medium?

I think there are better ways to increase innovation and competition on the 'net than making it a government entity.

Don't forget how keen they are to use it spy on us, too.

The argument for Obamacare was 'Evil greedy corporations are going to ruin the healthcare system any day now! The only solution is government control!'

The argument for so-called net neutrality is 'Evil greedy corporations are going to ruin the internet any day now! The only solution is government control!'

Cruz' comparison seems like an apt one to me.

It puzzles me...so many intelligent people fall for this anti-corporate fear mongering spread about by the government, and then turn around and say that those who warn against centralized government power are the ones guilty of fear mongering.

When I see evidence of corporate greed interefering with internet freedom, I will consider supporting government regulation. Until that happens, no bureaucrat will convince me that I should entrust the Feds with our primary method of communication.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

He who controls the flow of information in the future shall be king. TPTB will control comment sections and forums just like this in an attempt to control the people.




I would be very careful OP/sight owner what you wish for things are not what they seem. The entire game is fixed.

originally posted by: neo96
Fallacy ?

Yes.

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.

Don't let your partisanship get in the way of a good idea.

The Bush Administration's Internet Policy Statement of 2005 were among the first official government positions that all Internet content should be treated fairly and equally. At the time, it contained just guidelines, but was considered as the beginning roadmap to net neutrality.

Broadband cable modem service is already regulated under Title I of the Communications Act. So arguing that net neutrality introduces government control where none now exists is the fallacy. Arguing that it's an "Obama Administration" grab for more regulations is a fallacy, is the impetus began under the previous administration (and was embraced).

Title I of the Communications Act, however, lacks the teeth to ensure all content is treated equally. Classification as a Title II common carrier is imperfect, but introduces no more new regulation -- while creating tiers requires a great deal of law-making.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Guess what? I didn't like it then, either.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Arguing that it's an "Obama Administration" grab for more regulations is a fallacy, is the impetus began under the previous administration (and was embraced)

Still not seeing the fallacy:

President Obama calls for tighter rules from the FCC -- leaving a little bit of wiggle room -- in an effort to preserve a "free and open Internet."

This doesn't sound very 'net netural'

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
When I see evidence of corporate greed interefering with internet freedom, I will consider supporting government regulation.

How's this?


Beginning in October of last year, Comcast began extorting Netflix for fees in order to access higher speeds on its network. Netflix tried to fit back (it was rather public), but it could no longer tolerate the slow speeds being imposed by Comcast. So in February of 2014, Netflix agreed to start paying Comcast added fees for access to high speeds on its network.

Verizon and AT&T are doing the same thing.

Maybe this will clear up the utility issue. As a utility the service provider can provide the product but they can't dictate what you do with it. If electricity wasn't a utility the electric company could come to you and say that because you're using the electricity on inefficient incandescent bulbs rather than those oh so wonderful CFL's you need to pay an additional service charge. This is similar to what they're trying to do with tiers and priority queues now, you'll pay more for the sites they deem worth more money. As a utility your electric company cannot do that and the thought of it is absurd. Similarly the government cannot regulate that you pay more for using your electricity on a certain product (other than that product normally using more electricity than another product).

Making the internet a utility is a good thing. Electricity, Data, Water, these are all products we need, want, and desire but are also products that the provider shouldn't be allowed to dictate how we use other than the typical metered or flat rate costs.

originally posted by: SubTruth
He who controls the flow of information in the future shall be king.

Exactly. That's why the billionaire oligarchs who own the politicians want a tiered Internet. To slow down unapproved thoughts.

I hope they go through with it. Messing up the internet is the only way they'll piss off enough people to actually make their self-serving bs visible to all.

"What the..? why has my pornography turned into a slideshow? It's a law now? Dafuk, where was i? Oh right, watching internet porn.. Grab yur guns boys time to set the gubment straight!!"

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Hey SO,

What do you see happening directly to ATS as a result? I know you may have already answered that, and if so I'm sorry - I haven't read the entire thread.

Bring it home for us, please.

peace,
AB

originally posted by: ketsuko
You put the government in charge of the 'net and they can then start to regulate what you see on it ... you know, like those embarrassing stories.

There's no provisions for anything like that if broadband is classified as a Title II common carrier.

However, the tiered Internet favored by Cruz (and a confusing number of ATS members) would create a defacto means of censorship through obscurity.

A popular blog suddenly has a hot story on an important political issue? Slow down their Internet speeds to a crawl so that people give up trying to see it.

A photo sharing app is being used to distribute pictures of an important protest in Washington, DC? Slow down that app's service so people can no longer upload pictures.

The tiered proposal allows for putting categories of content into a slow-lane or lanes, with no restrictions on how slow those lanes can be.

originally posted by: thov420
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.

Interesting point. There are threads about "smart meters" that could shut you off if you use too much power, they track your power usage, and there are people here that would swear that they'd eat skunk before putting a smart meter attached to their house. Not that they have much of a choice, but government does and is dictating your very power usage!

a reply to: ketsuko

I'm not a fan of the government being in control of the internet either. The most complicated this issue needs to be is a law passed that says "all traffic on the internet needs to be treated equally". That's what I think most people in favor of Net Neutrality want. Not more regulations or restrictions, just a simple "Leave the net the way it is". Now what the government is actually going to do is another story.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
What do you see happening directly to ATS as a result? I know you may have already answered that, and if so I'm sorry - I haven't read the entire thread.

We would be unable to pay for the high speed levy required by all the carriers at play. Based on our traffic, and the estimates we've seen (and the precedent set by Netflix paying Comcast), it would be about another $4,500 (on average) a month for us.

We could some of that by going to a cloud provider like Amazon's AWS, but our total hosting costs would still be more than they are now.


It could very well put us out of business. As advertisers would soon become uninterested in sites in the slow lane -- another rarely discussed aspect of this issue.

originally posted by: thov420
Not more regulations or restrictions, just a simple "Leave the net the way it is".

It already is regulated by the Government under Title 1 of the Communications Act.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Indigo5

And ?

I have Time Warner.

I am a power user.

That downs load anywhere between 200 to 500 GIGS per month.

NEVER experienced a 'slow' down in the decacade I have had them.

Uhm, Mr. Power User. It should be 200 to 500 GB per month.

#Justsayin

originally posted by: beezzer
There are threads about "smart meters" that could shut you off if you use too much power,

From what I've seen, only the pay as you go meters could shut off your power. Otherwise, if there's an unexplained spike, the homeowner is notified.

We have a smart meter on our house. The available data from it has been very useful in modifying some of the things we do, and reducing our bill.

Now… the water utility here (Phoenix), they can AND DO shut of your water if they see big spikes -- but this is the desert after all.

originally posted by: peck420
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!

Uhh...the government is not a free market profit entity..


Don't know how to help you...Comcast and AT&T make BILLIONS in PROFITS each year and they have recovered their infrastructure costs decades ago.

See here

ISPs pay for a part of these infrastructures through their purchase of leased lines and, in some cases, payments to universities for rent and local administration. For the most part, the joint costs of the infrastructures are picked up directly by end users and are not included in the prices charged by ISPs.

...


The hardware and software costs described above are part of the costs of obtaining Internet service, as is the cost of the users' computers, and the LAN infrastructure in which large customers have invested.
This is an important feature of Internet economics: substantial elements of cost are borne by the user and not the ISP. Consequently, user costs are considerably higher than the charges set by the ISP.

Internet Cost Structures and Interconnection Agreements
quod.lib.umich.edu...

Try researching before just saying stuff.

Billions and Billions in profits...

And here's something interesting that came up in the research.

Verizon's FiOS Fiber to the Premise (FTTP) Networks are Already Title II in Massachusetts, Maryland, Florida, New Jersey, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, New York…

While Verizon has continuously told anyone who will listen that using the Title II classification for its broadband networks would harm innovation and investment, Verizon appears to have failed to disclose a basic fact to regulators and the courts:

FiOS uses a FTTP, 'fiber to the premises' network which has been based on the Title II, common carriage, telecommunications classification for about a decade. Why? Title II gives Verizon the ability to use the existing telecommunications rights of way, but it also has allowed Verizon to use basic phone customers as defacto investors through multiple rate increases to fund this FTTP network, which we documented in New York State. See our report: 'It's All Interconnected" (which we have also filed in this proceeding.)