Next Level BS #19: Net Neutrality, Ted Cruz, and Obamacare

Today on Next Level BS, we take a look at Ted Cruz's recent comments -- or lies -- regarding Net Neutrality. Following on the heels of Obama's apparent attempt to stay relevant with his YouTube proclamation on Net Neutrality, Ted Cruz had to toss some BS into the fray via Twitter. Since the realities of Net Neutrality have become a politicized land mine, we step you through what it means in a real world scenario, and why Ted is wrong. We also follow up with the implications, and what appears to be a pretty dire situation.




Watch in HD on www.TheNLBS.com


Share this video. Tell your friends. Expose the Next Level BS!


Follow Next Level BS on Twitter @theNLBS

Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Check us out on DailyMotion

Go to the website: www.theNLBS.com

And get NLBS t-shirts and swag thenlbs.spreadshirt.com

a reply to: theNLBS

Joe,

Thanks for yet another informative and well put together video! The issue of net neutrality is one which is going to be crucial in times to come. With so many businesses and services now relying on the internet for everything from basic communication between franchise owners and their various outlets, to stock management systems and banking, the speed at which services are rendered by ISPs is vital to virtually (you see what I did there?) the entire financial structure of the economy. That does not just apply to America of course, but the whole world.

You see American companies, on both sides of the law, trade with all manner of international entities, from governments to other businesses, and indeed private individuals all over the globe, even when they should not necessarily be doing so. To think that some web based businesses could be driven out of relevance by those who oppose Net Neutrality, is a seriously worrisome thought. It could change the way the world does business, and I see no way in which priority can be given to certain packets, and others be slowed down, which would not wind up with initial chaos, not to mention a significant loss of faith in the companies loosing out most.

Furthermore, the proposals to slow down certain data packets concern me for other reasons. When the World Wide Web was first created, its developer, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, envisioned a space for the free sharing of ideas, concepts, and the like. A place where the fringe had exactly the same platform and ability to project themselves into the world as did the mainstream entities that existed before it.

The trouble with messing with the net as it stands to day, is that if packets can be slowed down for financial reasons, then what is to stop packets being slowed down or removed from the data stream for political reasons? If anything remotely like that were allowed to happen, then this very website could end up slower than a crippled snail, or offline all together, because we all know that despite some of the mad foolishness that gets posted here on occasion, there is also an awful lot of information and discussion here, which may not suit the people who pull the strings.

And it is not just this website that could suffer, but all websites which carry in depth political commentary from any sources not bought off by media empires, political puppet masters, and big energy to name a few players with a dog in this fight.

In short, preventing the World Wide Web from being affected by the greed of the ISPs is precisely as important as preventing the co-opting of the web by intelligence agencies as a tool of mass surveillance as part of the backdoor installation of a police state. Of course, by that very token, I give the net remaining a place of equality of platform pretty low odds, at best. At worst, this debate, if it goes the wrong way, could kill what we know as the net, and may drive some of us completely away from it.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: theNLBS

Joe,

Thanks for yet another informative and well put together video! The issue of net neutrality is one which is going to be crucial in times to come. With so many businesses and services now relying on the internet for everything from basic communication between franchise owners and their various outlets, to stock management systems and banking, the speed at which services are rendered by ISPs is vital to virtually (you see what I did there?) the entire financial structure of the economy. That does not just apply to America of course, but the whole world.

Going for an award?

a reply to: onequestion

Award? What, the "Overly verbose bastard" award?

Nope! The thing is, I feel if one is going to comment on a bit of media created by the ATS family, then the least one can do is actually engage with the topic at hand a little, and expand upon points made, for the benefit of the discussion.

So what would happened if someone played the game

Their is a way I see to bypass the backbone
thank you and its very legal and the major providers would be screwed

Let me talk with my friend

He is the horse sense man in the operations we are planning to make money
The trick is that the money is in the equipment selling not the gold


Good show
I disagree with some of your take here

However I have no interest in being raked over the coals for my net service either


As for another idea for a show

Dallas ISD Superintendent Mike Miles defends high salaries for cabinet members, suggests Jennifer Sprague is being criticized because of her looks, age

After a week in which Dallas school Superintendent Mike Miles came under fire for paying his top-level deputies high salaries, he fought back Saturday, defended their pay as reasonable and contended one is being singled out because of her looks.

Miles said that the communication chief’s $185,000 salary and the $220,000 salary for the chief operating officer were comparable to other large urban districts and what it takes to hire nationally recognized people.

“I’m bringing in two people that I trust,” Miles said in an interview with the news media Saturday. “Most people understand that. They are not my friends. I have never had coffee with either one of them.”

Miles defended the salary for Jennifer Sprague, who will follow him from his Colorado Springs, Colo. district to become the communications chief, and suggested her pay is being criticized because she is a 31-year-old female. He said her salary, which is nearly $100,000 more than what she earned in Colorado, was warranted because of her proven track record and numerous national awards.

In short hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent of tax payer money to salaries of non-elected officials

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: onequestion

Award? What, the "Overly verbose bastard" award?

Nope! The thing is, I feel if one is going to comment on a bit of media created by the ATS family, then the least one can do is actually engage with the topic at hand a little, and expand upon points made, for the benefit of the discussion.

Hey I can appreciate that!

a reply to: TrueBrit

I really enjoy your replies :-)

Thanks for watching!

The basic understanding I have about net neutrality is that it is an intentional agreement to not turn the internet into a war zone. There is a lot to the internet and the current issue reminds me of Tesla getting stiffed by Morgan, the problem was all about putting a meter on the grid. Now it sounds like there is some group that wants to put their meter on our internet.

How will the world react when it is multinational organizations collecting these new meter charges? The core design of the internet is to be free and open and just like the capabilities exist to bypass an electricity grid meter I am sure the capabilities will exist to bypass any other proposed meters.

Since all this stuff came out about the NSA spying people are running as fast as they can from Windows with all its built in back doors from Microsoft.

Tails is worth a look, fits on a pen-stick that you just plug and play in a USB slot but when China brings out a new O/S to compete with windows then I am going for it because China has no reason to spy on me unlike my local government that wants to know what hand I wipe my arse with.

a reply to: kwakakev

The basic understanding I have about net neutrality is that it is an intentional agreement to not turn the internet into a war zone.

Flame put paid to that but all it did was to teach Iran and the rest of the world how to make systems more hack proof and not to trust Siemens controllers.

If you see ip addresses from China in your logs then don't worry because most the time it is hackers from the west using VPNs or Proxy Servers that are based in China and not some communist that wants to know if you are going to vote left or right or even how much money you have got.

With those like Ted Cruz sitting on boards that deal with science I am convinced that we are a step closer to this.



Need more electrolytes Ted.

Joe in one breath you claim ISP's are going to slow down sites that don't pay, and in the next breath you say they're going to slow down sites they don't like... so which is it?

In my opinion, if anyone's going to be censoring anything it'll be the FCC, not the ISP's. The dems are looking for a way to regulate political speech on the internet, and this could very well be the foot in the door that they need to make that happen.

a reply to: VirusGuard

How I understand the fist Siemens attack was that it was through a USB stick into a secure nuclear facility, since then the code has evolved to include IP based attacking. In terms of any state sponsored attacks using such techniques it is breaking net neutrality. The fallout could be large if banks, power companies, water utilities and others all came under attack. The other smaller group based attacks will fall under the terrorist umbrella, such as political descent, corporate espionage, blackmail and protection rackets or just board kids for example.

It is prudent that critical services do have defenses against viruses and other data nasties, not a lot you can do when you are dead.

As for hacking, do anything that only reads data is fine under net neutrality as it meets the aim of keeping the channels of communication open. There may be other laws and agreements that unauthorized reading of data breaks.

As for hacking that changes data or causes any forms of disruption to services, it is breaking net neutrality. The state does have some self determination to temporarily limit its own services, like when performing military actions for example. But the general consensus is keep the data pipes on and functioning.

a reply to: Bone75

Joe in one breath you claim ISP's are going to slow down sites that don't pay, and in the next breath you say they're going to slow down sites they don't like... so which is it?

Why do you think it would be either or? They could do both.

In my opinion, if anyone's going to be censoring anything it'll be the FCC, not the ISP's. The dems are looking for a way to regulate political speech on the internet, and this could very well be the foot in the door that they need to make that happen.

Well considering repubs have been the ones to openly claim they want to censor the internet I think you are looking in the wrong direction.

Aside from making it left right do you have anything other than your opinion on this. What I mean by that is can you show where net neutrality is in anyway designed or written where it will censor the internet? Please don't quote Ted Cruz as either he doesn't have a clue or he is a lying sack o #@!# for comcast and their ilk. Bought and paid for.

a reply to: VirusGuard

Absolutely nothing is going to change regarding the NSA and whatever other alphabet agencies spying on us. That's a separate issue, one definitely worth fighting but... maintaining net neutrality or losing it, won't change anything about spying.

This about either allowing or disallowing major ISP providers to extort from every business that depends on the internet for survival. Keeping net neutrality disallows extortion. Losing neutrality means Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, AT&T gets to tell anyone they want to bend over.

a reply to: Bone75

Bone75, since it will be smaller enterprises which will not be able to pay the fees, the only voices the ISP's will like to hear, are those whose insidious blather is part of large media corporations or other large scale business interests. The cause of citizen groups, independent free thought, and so on, will not be something that the ISP's like, because freedom does not make them boat loads of cash.

It makes perfect sense to me!

At this rate many of us will probably not live to see FTTH even though it was invented decades ago. It supposedly takes 1000 years to get off 1930's coaxial lines.

I miss the days of ATS being a neutral place, where you can come to discuss Conspiracy, Aliens, Secret Societies, etc.

These days the outright overt leftist "in your face" content such as this is just driving people away.
Maybe that's what you want. Who knows?

I didn't bother watching this episode, or any of the past 4 or 5 episodes, simply because the headline was all I needed to know about what it would be about.

And the fact that the owners of this site are the force behind it just makes me shake my head.

It's ok to have an opinion about these subjects, but to make it the first thing you see, and then force it down our throats with all the banners, advertisements, etc, just makes me scroll past it as fast as I can.

That's just my humble opinion, and i'm sure it will fall on deaf ears.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Bone75

Bone75, since it will be smaller enterprises which will not be able to pay the fees

What kind of fees are we talking about here? 10 bucks a month? 100 bucks a month? A thousand? Ten thousand? Do you even have the slightest clue?

originally posted by: DarkkHero
These days the outright overt leftist "in your face" content such as this is just driving people away.
Maybe that's what you want. Who knows?

You're the one who's not neutral. There's nothing inherently "leftist" about net neutrality -- but the "right side" of the political madness in the US is working desperately to promote that narrative, and you're buying into it.

I didn't bother watching this episode, or any of the past 4 or 5 episodes, simply because the headline was all I needed to know about what it would be about.

Then it's stupid to presume to know the content, and comment on it.