"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government
- Ted Cruz
I think someone needs to explain to the Republican poster boy what Net Neutrality is. Does Ted Cruz have a bunch of support on this forum? I guess the more relevant question--does he still? Let's see how many Americans believe this and all-of-a-sudden go against Net Neutrality... just because Obama supports it and Ted Cruz doesn't.
Dang, you let the cat out the bag.... Maybe Obama should have said no to Net Neutrality, so Cruz would support it!
quote
Originally posted by theBDub:
I can't enough. Seriously.
- Ted Cruz
I think someone needs to explain to the Republican poster boy what Net Neutrality is. Does Ted Cruz have a bunch of support on this forum? I guess the more relevant question--does he still? Let's see how many Americans believe this and all-of-a-sudden go against Net Neutrality... just because Obama supports it and Ted Cruz doesn't.
I've read a little bit on net neutrality. If it will be what they say it will be, then I don't have a problem with it. But I'm always skeptical as to the usual gap between what our elected officials promise and what they actually deliver.
Not sticking up for Cruz, but I believe he is expressing his frustration towards government run or regulated anything. If the government legislates "neutrality" for the internet, the typical response will be prices up, services down and unhappy campers everywhere- just like cable TV, healthcare, the auto industry...
Any industry the government sticks their nose in falls victim to this. We all know too well the government can't run ANYTHING. Not even themselves.
------------------ 1986 SE Aero coupe.
3.4 DOHC swap is complete and running, now just have to finish the rest of the car...
I'm probably one of the rare people who is against Net Neutrality.
Because companies should be able to do as they wish, right? I can see that, considering I'm a Libertarian. But Net Neutrality is important to me because the major ISPs own the government, i.e. Crony Capitalism, and ending Net Neutrality will add to their influence in politics.
no, Cruz is not against it because Obama is for it. this is a $$$ issue he is just following which way the money is blowing. The (R)Tea Party way.
Of course. We all know there has never been a democrat to do that. I think it'd be more accurate to say that many/most politicians will or can be lead by money and/or power.
If there was open competition we would not have to even discuss Net Neutrality since we would only choose suppliers that offer it and competition would drive every service provider to offer it or lose business.
Since most of the country does not have much of an Internet choice this is a monopoly issue.
However why is the government involving the F.C.C.? There is no “over the air” broadcasting on the internet. Even though you can stream video this is a bandwidth and service blocking issue.
My big concern is this is in the hands of the F.C.C. which sets a dangerous precedent on censorship.
Since this is an interstate bandwidth issue shouldn’t this be a F.T.C. issue since it deals with consumers and most of the traffic is interstate?
Why is this a bad thing? Only because the government under Obama wants to control the Internet. Bad news. They are already plotting how to equalize things. And the concerns are for the Liberals and their agenda. Especially because they want to involve the FCC in this. Right now the push would be to stifle the conservative voices on the internet along with the Libertarian voices.
Tomorrow depending on who is in office it would possibly be the other side being stifled. Government control of the Internet is fraught with problems. That is why Ted Cruz is against it. Not for some made up idea that someone like Pyrthian can concoct.
It is working fine right now and as soon as the government gets its hands into it, we will shortly have stupidity in charge.
I can't remember who said it, but: "It the government was put in-charge of the desert we would shortly run out of sand."
Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor
If the government is allowed to regulate this, forget about any neutrality or equality.
Obama wants to control the Internet. They are already plotting ... ...concerns are for the Liberals... ...stifle the conservative voices ...
Does this currently happen with telecommunications? I wish it would have during the election... I got tired of those robo calls... maybe they can help block those
Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor
If the government is allowed to regulate this, forget about any neutrality or equality.
got it backwards. if government does NOT enforce net neutrality - there will not be net neutrality. we have already seen this with ComCast & Netflix. That was the opening attack against net neutrality. if that stood, we would be on our way to toll based internet where every hop from you to whatever site you connect to would be billable.
If there was open competition we would not have to even discuss Net Neutrality since we would only choose suppliers that offer it and competition would drive every service provider to offer it or lose business.
Since most of the country does not have much of an Internet choice this is a monopoly issue.
However why is the government involving the F.C.C.? There is no “over the air” broadcasting on the internet. Even though you can stream video this is a bandwidth and service blocking issue.
My big concern is this is in the hands of the F.C.C. which sets a dangerous precedent on censorship.
Since this is an interstate bandwidth issue shouldn’t this be a F.T.C. issue since it deals with consumers and most of the traffic is interstate?
And it's a monopoly because ISPs bought out local governments to only allow themselves in the area. We are already living in a time of Crony Capitalism. I'm usually all for big business. But I'm not for business in politics, and the majors have used the government to stifle all competition, and they want to do it again by making Net Neutrality sound bad.
quote
Originally posted by MadMark:
Why is this a bad thing? Only because the government under Obama wants to control the Internet. Bad news. They are already plotting how to equalize things. And the concerns are for the Liberals and their agenda. Especially because they want to involve the FCC in this. Right now the push would be to stifle the conservative voices on the internet along with the Libertarian voices.
Tomorrow depending on who is in office it would possibly be the other side being stifled. Government control of the Internet is fraught with problems. That is why Ted Cruz is against it. Not for some made up idea that someone like Pyrthian can concoct.
It is working fine right now and as soon as the government gets its hands into it, we will shortly have stupidity in charge.
I can't remember who said it, but: "It the government was put in-charge of the desert we would shortly run out of sand."
Made up? We already saw Netflix get throttled by major ISPs until Netflix was forced to pay more to keep their site accessible. The made up scenario is Obama hushing Conservative voices.
quote
Originally posted by avengador1:
Net neutrality
Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor
If the government is allowed to regulate this, forget about any neutrality or equality.
Government wants to enforce net neutrality... ISPs want to take it away. Looks like the ones I expected to line up behind Cruz are doing so.
Originally posted by jaskispyder: Does this currently happen with telecommunications? I wish it would have during the election... I got tired of those robo calls... maybe they can help block those
No, because the Fairness doctrine was repealed by the Republicans. That was where the FCC tried to limit conservative talk radio. The Democrats have tried several times to get this back, but so far no.
This Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem and along the way if enacted it will be used against a political foe. Don't even think that somehow the government will be neutral. Because we have a long history of its not being that way.
Made up? We already saw Netflix get throttled by major ISPs until Netflix was forced to pay more to keep their site accessible. The made up scenario is Obama hushing Conservative voices.
Haven't you heard. Obama and his minions used the IRS against TEA party and any other groups that were conservative. So Obama already has a history of doing this with whatever he can get his hands on.
And the ability to do something like this would not necessarily be limited to a Democrat, so protect yourself and other from the overreach of government by limiting their abilities.
No, because the Fairness doctrine was repealed by the Republicans. That was where the FCC tried to limit conservative talk radio. The Democrats have tried several times to get this back, but so far no.
So, our government is working then?
Still haven't seen where a phone has been threaten by something like a fairness doctrine and that is how I see this being enacted.
(Also, I am not saying we take Obama's idea at 100%... but when you have Teddy Cruz... ex-Canadian.... saying "No"... well that is just sticking "your" head in the sand)
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 11-11-2014).]
I fear the government more than I do any corporation. I am against the government regulating this. Once they start they never stop. The system is just full of abuse and potential for abuse.
This is only an issue now because of the lack of competition with ISPs in many markets. As the technology advances, there will be more ISPs available. The competition will fix the issues on its own without the government getting involved.
Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor
If the government is allowed to regulate this, forget about any neutrality or equality.
This is my concern. I favor the "idea" of net neutrality. I'm not so sure about the legislation. Just like ObamaCare, I'm in favor of the "idea" of affordable health insurance. That's what the legislation promoted and promised, but not what it delivered.
Big government, big corporations. I feel like I'm caught between them and I'm losing. From what I know of net neutrality I'm for it. Not so sure of Obamas solution, but it's not like he would lie to us.
I fear the government more than I do any corporation. I am against the government regulating this. Once they start they never stop. The system is just full of abuse and potential for abuse.
This is only an issue now because of the lack of competition with ISPs in many markets. As the technology advances, there will be more ISPs available. The competition will fix the issues on its own without the government getting involved.
I don't want the government controlling the internet. I don't want the government to have to do much of anything. But the major ISPs have already corrupted the government to take away competition, and they want to corrupt the government again to allow them to control what we see without us having a second option. If the government classifies the internet as a utility, how does that grant them power over content? They can control how much water goes to my house, but not how it's used. If I pay for bandwidth, I want to be able to use it however I please.
What is your solution to the current problem? I'm not challenging you--I'm asking you.
I don't want the government controlling the internet. I don't want the government to have to do much of anything. But the major ISPs have already corrupted the government to take away competition, and they want to corrupt the government again to allow them to control what we see without us having a second option. If the government classifies the internet as a utility, how does that grant them power over content? They can control how much water goes to my house, but not how it's used. If I pay for bandwidth, I want to be able to use it however I please.
What is your solution to the current problem? I'm not challenging you--I'm asking you.
I think the solution is in the 2nd article: open access for rights-of-way. This will allow a bigger selection between ISPs and promote competition. The competition will strongly discourage or prevent ISPs from limiting content.
If we get the local governments out of the way, the market will take care of itself. As long as they keep the barrier high for competition, the big ISPs will continue to dominate and will be in a position to exert control.
Another possibility, but I'm not sure how well it will work, is open access network. In that model, the network would be broken up between different companies so that none of them can exert control.
Big government, big corporations. I feel like I'm caught between them and I'm losing. From what I know of net neutrality I'm for it. Not so sure of Obamas solution, but it's not like he would lie to us.
"If you like your ISP, you can keep your ISP." Sorry, couldn't resist.
Big government, big corporations. I feel like I'm caught between them and I'm losing.
Good point. My view is it's easier to go with a competitor corporation than a competitor government. Sure, you don't always have options and some regulation is necessary, but if I don't like Best Buy, I can go to Target or HH Gregg, or any number of other companies. If I don't like the DMV or the IRS, it's not like I can go to a different one.
Things are happening fast. Elon Musk (spacex and tesla) is talking about micro satelites for the internet. Google, high flying balloons and Facebook ,drones for the internet. I don't know the different economics involved but I would think that drones and balloons could be an air traffic problem.
Things are happening fast. Elon Musk (spacex and tesla) is talking about micro satelites for the internet. Google, high flying balloons and Facebook ,drones for the internet. I don't know the different economics involved but I would think that drones and balloons could be an air traffic problem.
Things are happening fast. I was just working on a project for a company that helps with laying fiber optic cable. There is a revolution going on in that all types of communications, telephone, TV, Internet etc are able to be sent to your home by different means. You were before limited to cable for your TV and then they are now able to use cable to send you Internet and your landline phone service. Satellite TV now has the capability of sending you Internet too. Fiber Optical connections are the latest and they can send and receive just about anything and it is very fast. Elon Musk has a plan, as you noted, for low cost satellites to deliver sat phone, TV and Internet.
The more the diversity of suppliers that can give you what you want becomes the norm the better the deal for the consumer. It is the local, state and federal regulations (deals for big companies) that limit you the more you will spend.
The cable and Satellite conglomerates are also being pressured by those of us who chose to cut the cable. Did you realize that when you pay for your TV billing (no matter which method of delivery) you pay to keep all of these networks going that you don't really use. Think Al Jezera, BET, CNN, Shopping Network and many others. I know that I don't want to support them and many others, but that is the way it is set up right now. You might have a different list of non-preferred networks, but it all works out the same. Why should I pay for something that I don't either like or maybe even despise. And why should you. Everything should be Ala carte. Let me chose what I want to watch, when I want to watch it. If many of these slug networks go down, who cares? Not me.
got it backwards. if government does NOT enforce net neutrality - there will not be net neutrality. we have already seen this with ComCast & Netflix. That was the opening attack against net neutrality. if that stood, we would be on our way to toll based internet where every hop from you to whatever site you connect to would be billable.
quote
Originally posted by theBDub: Government wants to enforce net neutrality... ISPs want to take it away. Looks like the ones I expected to line up behind Cruz are doing so.
Net neutrality — At first glance, that’s a term which seems agreeable to everyone. After all, who doesn’t want the Internet to be fair to everyone?
But as is often the case, the devil is in the details – and President Obama is starting to unveil his opinions on how to achieve “net neutrality.”
On Monday, the Obama administration released a statement calling for the reclassification of the Internet as a public utility under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. This change would allow the FCC to regulate cyberspace much like they do television, radio, and other forms of communication.
Right now, the FCC views the Internet as an “information service,” which minimizes the amount of government oversight provided.
Reclassifying the web as a “utility” would necessitate the drafting and implementation of countless new regulations and bureaucratic red tape which would, according to one Internet expert, “regulate the business model of your local ISP.”
The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, a trade group which represents ISPs, released a statement which argues that Obama is trying to put a square peg into a round hole:
“Title II includes a host of arcane provisions that have nothing to do with broadband service, including rules regarding interlocking directorates, valuation of carrier property, uniform systems of accounts and depreciation charts, telephone operator service, Bell Operating Company entry into interLATA services, manufacturing of telecommunication equipment and customer premises equipment, and electronic publishing.”
WISPA believes that this reclassification as a utility would place undue hardships on small business ISPs, as well as hinder investment in new technologies and slow broadband proliferation into rural parts of the U.S.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has adopted a similar stance on the matter.
Given the complexity of the issue and the divergence of opinions on how to address it (as well as the shift in power in the legislative branch after last week’s elections), no action is expected on net neutrality anytime soon.
However, this is certainly starting to look like it could become yet another contentious battle between the GOP and the President over the next two years.
Even I would pay a small fortune to hear a good band named Throbbing Fractious Hydra.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
OK, let one of the smarter guys explain why Ted Cruz is full of ignorance. I know you guys all hate Senator Franken because he's smarter and better informed than your stone age heroes. But when a man is right, he's right.
------------------
I speak English. Sue me.
[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 11-17-2014).]
enough. Seriously. 
I think it'd be more accurate to say that many/most politicians will or can be lead by money and/or power. 
