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

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The graph and information you present is an example of big businesses trying to maintain profits without investing in new infrastructure. If consumers exercise their right to choose a local ISP over the big three, Comcast, AT&T and Verizon will be forced to keep up with increasing demand for bandwidth.

That's how capitalism works. Excluding rural areas, most all of us have alternatives to the big three. Responsible consumers will react to poor service by - gasp! - doing business with another company. In a free and prosperous economy, someone will step up to meet the needs of consumers...and take their money.

i seem to always get poor service at fast food restaurants. Should we ask the government to fix that too? How about bad haircuts? Maybe we should ask them to fix the DMV, IRS, and Post Office first.

a reply to: beezzer

I've heard of those smart meters but have no experience with them. Never heard of them shutting ppl off for using too much power though.

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.

a reply to: Indigo5

Yea...speaking of research...

From YOUR source:

As a prelude to this analysis, we describe the cost structure of Internet service provision. Two caveats are in order. First, we focus on the incremental costs of Internet service provision, with occasional references, where relevant, to examples of Internet costs that are borne directly by end users. The Internet has been built incrementally on a very expensive infrastructure, which includes the facilities of the telephone companies, the computing environment of end users (including department LANs and systems administration), and the campus LANs around which the original regional networks were built. 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. Second, in the absence of results generated by a more methodical approach, we rely on anecdotal evidence. Below, we list the major categories of cost and describe which elements of cost are sunk, fixed, and variable. The analysis is a useful first step toward understanding Internet competition and interconnection arrangements.

Caveat 1: We don't account for the 'very expensive infrastructure'...just the incremental costs. Great. If there is no main, what do you think they will plug the line to your house into?

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!

That is one brilliant source you decided to use as a reference...

I really can't believe some of the replies I'm reading.

Hold on tight...

a reply to: AmenStop

LOL, Yes I'm scarred? I'm not even sure what you are talking about?

However, it has nothing todo with being scared its just reality. The fact is that lobbyist get their way, its only a matter of time.

The fault is the people that still believe they make a difference in a system that is rigged. As long as people think that we can change a corrupt system via the system itself, nothing will change.

Get back to me when the majority of the people ONLY want to discuss and demand that our politicians solely concentrate on Lobbying and the millions of dollars thrown at them via the special interest groups that they are suppose to be protecting us from.

Until than their is little if any hope of changing anything for the better. Its not fear, its identifying the problem and being aware of the TRUTH and what needs to be done. The truth is not pretty , but I'm not pretending their is hope to make me feel better when the record indicates otherwise.

When did we start putting our trust in the government?

Did I miss a memo or a meeting?

It must have been a watershed moment, really. We talk about the ineptness of government on a daily basis and now all of a sudden?

We are trusting that they are doing something with our best interests at heart.

I mean, with the recent elections, I and many should be jumping up and down with glee!

But no, I have my doubts about the honesty and true intentions of this.

Maybe a conspirc- naaaaah. Government would never lie.

a reply to: interupt42

I fear you're right.

bits.blogs.nytimes.com...

More than 3.7 million comments poured into the Federal Communications Commission over the four months that it was seeking public input on its proposal for “Promoting and Protecting the Open Internet,” also known as net neutrality.

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.

a reply to: beezzer

So instead you want to trust the government to tier the internet.
Massive logic failure.

a reply to: beezzer

I highly doubt anyone here trusts the government as far as they can throw them, but this is issue is really more about keeping the net the way it is than burdening it with a bunch of rules/regulations/laws like some might want to do.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

So instead you want to trust the government to tier the internet.
Massive logic failure.

Um, no. But apparently you trust the government to regulate the internet.

Unlike you, I don't see a saviour here.

I see a frying pan and a fire.

But since you''ve become such a fan of a GOP led government, then you'll be supportive of anything they do.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: beezzer

I highly doubt anyone here trusts the government as far as they can throw them, but this is issue is really more about keeping the net the way it is than burdening it with a bunch of rules/regulations/laws like some might want to do.

So changing the internet into a utility won't add multiple layers of rules and regulations and taxes?

(Have you taken a look at your utility bills lately? Yes, taxes!)

I'm guessing my first post came across incorrectly: I utterly disagree with Cruz, but made a mockery of him saying that the Internet should not be as fast as the Government. I believe it should be faster. I just phrased my feelings in a smart-ass, mock Ted Cruz way that apparently got lost in translation.

I don't want Big Brother anywhere near my Internet freedom. He already owns ( through a few companies ) the bandwidth and he's got the NSA set up to spy on it. Those things, in and of themselves infuriate me. But to want to throttle it as a means of silencing political dissent?

No way. Absolutely not. Unequivocably NO SIR.

Oh, and Mr Cruz - if you and the idiots like you do somehow manage to pull this out of your hindquarters and make it a reality - there will be an army of FOSS believing people figuring out how to bypass every single restriction you put into place. It will be a war like you and your cronies have never experienced before.

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: beezzer

Will FCC get to regulate what is said or shown over the internet, like it can on broadcast television?

I don't know.

That's kind of how I am thinking, TV and radio are restricted on the material they can broadcast for various reasons, while any internet control is in the area of attempted censorship..I don't think they could do any more than attempt blocking, a big issue all on it's own. There again, the defamation law, (by default a restriction on freedom of speech anyway) which is in force, should be sufficient to restrain those who would seek to do harm to individuals and others by the use of the internet, as long as law inforcement pursues those offenders, but that's their job.
I see no good reason then that the internet should be seen as part of telecoms, unless somebody is going to rewrite the whole laws and meanings of telecoms.
What I do see with Cruz's remarks is a cosiness with mainstream broadcasting et al since government and mainstream broadcasting, (which is floundering against the immediacy of the internet..including forums like this one) are entertwined.

originally posted by: beezzer
But no, I have my doubts about the honesty and true intentions of this.

We all do. Especially since Verizon self-classified as a Title II utility beginning in 2005, and is now fighting against it.

The issue most people are buying into is that reclassification injects government regulation of the Internet. It doesn't, it just changes the regulation from one form to another.

Allowing tiers with levies-for-speed is akin to enabling the industry with a Standard Oil style monopoly… allowing a select few to give advantage to another select few. Or putting it another way, it's giving a pass to a select few companies on the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Sure it would be best if none of this needed to happen. If all carriers treated Internet packets the same, and they competed on price and service to the consumers and content providers. But it's not that way… and about to get worse if the FCC's hybrid approach becomes law.

Americans pay the highest prices for the slowest internet. The big telecom companies are keeping the internet slow so that later on they can propose these 'fast lanes' where certain websites will load faster than others.

ATS could be relegated to the speed of late 90's dial-up while COMCAST owned nbc.com will load all of its content faster, simply because ATS refuses to pay for the 'extra' bandwidth.

Anyone who thinks the internet in America is working just fine as it is really, honestly, has no clue what they're talking about.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

If consumers exercise their right to choose a local ISP over the big three, Comcast, AT&T and Verizon will be forced to keep up with increasing demand for bandwidth.

That's how capitalism works. Excluding rural areas, most all of us have alternatives to the big three.

You don't have a capitalist market, you have a market run by Oligopolies. Att, Comcast and Verizon made an Oligopoly to ensure no competition.

The only time they had real competition was by another Oligopoly industry (Google,netflix,amazon,etc). As soon as Google started to install Fiber Att ,comcast, and verizon took them to court to make it illegal to do what Google was doing: Offering FAST,reliable, un-tiered and unlimited reasonable priced internet.

All the sudden the Oligopoly Att , verizon, and comcast dropped their prices increased their speeds in markets that google fiber was offered. Why for numerous decades they hadn't done that, why did a new company in the industry blow them out of the water? Why because until Google challenged them their was no competition, they didn't have to do anything but cash the check.

Luckily for us we have another Oligopoly(tech sector: Google,Netflix,Amazon) that has business practices that is more consumer friendly, Even that Oligopoly is having problems competing in the so called free telecom market.

Competition only happens at the Oligopoly level , which doesn't happen often if ever.

originally posted by: beezzer
When did we start putting our trust in the government?

Did I miss a memo or a meeting?

It must have been a watershed moment, really. We talk about the ineptness of government on a daily basis and now all of a sudden?

We are trusting that they are doing something with our best interests at heart.

I mean, with the recent elections, I and many should be jumping up and down with glee!

But no, I have my doubts about the honesty and true intentions of this.

Maybe a conspirc- naaaaah. Government would never lie.

You do realize that repealing Net Neutrality is putting faith in the government? Net Neutrality is a very simple set of networking principals, every time we remove a little bit of it we create a whole host of rules by which companies can violate those principals and how they can use them. 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.

Ted Cruz here isn't just making the big business/lobbyist play. He's also arguing for big government regulation.

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.

a reply to: Aazadan


And I'm a Tea Party jerk like Ted cruz, and I shudder at the thought of having him or anyone like him controling or influencing the internet.