Ted Cruz goes full retard: Net Neutrality is Obamacare for Internet

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

master_shake_

Diamond Member
May 22, 2012
6,425
292
121
If there were no net neutrality but we had competition it would still be a better world then one with net neutrality and ZERO competition. The enter debate on net-neutrality serves nothing more then a means to astro-turf the issue of a lack of competition in the marketplace which is the REAL problem here.

the biggest issue with competition is that municipalities who want faster internet are being lobbied by isps to keep it a one horse town.

that's why google is having a hell of an issue getting in to other markets.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
Oh, I thought you were living in reality. Guess not.

You actually can already get fiber depending on where you live, they are installing right now. Couple friends already have it, and I see crews out there installing daily. I just have to wait for my neighborhood.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,564
1,150
126
You actually can already get fiber depending on where you live, they are installing right now. Couple friends already have it, and I see crews out there installing daily. I just have to wait for my neighborhood.

I live in Dallas. I have AT&T Uverse GigaPower Fiber. Right now I only have 100/100 but that is plenty for my needs. This would not have been offereed if Google hadn't started their Google Fiber biz.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
You actually can already get fiber depending on where you live, they are installing right now. Couple friends already have it, and I see crews out there installing daily. I just have to wait for my neighborhood.

For the vast majority of the country, there is no such option, much less affordable.. As has been stated, the big lobby has made local agreements to keep competition out. There are no choices.

It is cheaper to lobby away the competition than to actually compete.

Besides, that 1Gb connection won't do much good if they are allowed to pick who gets the bandwidth and who doesn't.
 
Last edited:

yankeesfan

Diamond Member
Aug 6, 2004
5,922
1
71
It's interesting to consider how Ted Cruz is actually furthering his anti-Obamacare agenda with this message. Notice how no one is discussing the merits of Obamacare, or that being compared to Obamacare should be a supposed good thing for net neutrality. Everyone is defending net neutrality but in a way that also distances it from Obamacare.

For Cruz's anti-Obamacare agenda, this denigration of Obamacare is a boon and represents another milestone in defeating support for the program.
 
Last edited:

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
the biggest issue with competition is that municipalities who want faster internet are being lobbied by isps to keep it a one horse town.

that's why google is having a hell of an issue getting in to other markets.

That is a problem with government and those who run it taking money to serve their own interests. The lobbying is a by-product of these municipalities having too much power and say in who operates in their area alongside the corrupting nature of politics that draws in those seeking to influence these local power brokers.
 
Last edited:

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,613
13,311
136
I live in Dallas. I have AT&T Uverse GigaPower Fiber. Right now I only have 100/100 but that is plenty for my needs. This would not have been offereed if Google hadn't started their Google Fiber biz.

bingo.

google fiber just announced a plan for Los Angeles. TWC instantly upgraded me for free from 20/2 to 100/10.

i sent tom wheeler an email to let him know that true competition drives down cost and improves services, and TWC's actions reflect that.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,409
5,009
136
Net Neutrality is great on its face value. But like Fern I wonder what the Real Meaning will develop into once the government gets a toe hold. I am not defending what Cruz said as I did not read any of it. I do think that his meaning would be more along the lines of Obama Care was going to allow this and that ( like keep your Doctor and Your Health Care Plan if you like them ). But after it was passed we find out it is all bull shit and in many cases you cannot keep either.
 
Last edited:

etrigan420

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2007
1,723
1
81
So he'd be on record as being correct at least once?

Fern

Nope.

The joy and satisfaction that would be derived from Obama making the above mentioned declaration would be in seeing morons such as yourself and Cruz squirm:

"Well, I'd caution anyone to take the Presidents word at face value. It's more of a blue-gray..."

Then somehow bringing Obamacare, Benghazi, and Lois Lerner into the mix, with a side of CLIMATE CHANGE IS A LIE for good measure.

For the mental midgets in the audience:

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Net Neutrality is a red-herring. It is there for political brownie points but it does not address the core issue and problem with broadband access in the US.

The real issue with broadband in the US is the total lack of competition that has not and will not occur regardless of how net neutrality plays out.

**"ITS A LACK OF COMPETITION STUPID !!".**

ISP_Ruler_by_State_Wide.png


It is not a lack of government involvement. Especially when companies like Comcast are in fact the de facto monopoly that has been chosen by local and state governments and thus the only real game in most towns in terms of a fast broadband provider. Neither is it an issue that ALL data packets should be given access to the bill of rights and considered "EQUAL" under god or some other bullshit.

Especially when the reality is sometimes certain large quantities of data along with the large consumers of this data or producers of that data within a network should indeed pay more because they can and often do cause increased network traffic and congestion which necessitates that ISP's expand their networks to keep speeds up for the rest of their customers and all of that costs money.

The real crux of the problem is the complete lack of viable choices for consumers compared to say cell phone providers of which you can find myriads of providers from the big boys like T-MOBILE, AT&T, to local firms or specialized firms like Tracfone, etc. So unless Obama is ready to throw open the floodgates and forbid local ISP monopolies from dominating localities and allow the same level of competition seen with cellular companies well then this is nothing but politics as usual and most of you bit into it hook line and sinker.

Time to start producing Modem banks again.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
I live in Dallas. I have AT&T Uverse GigaPower Fiber. Right now I only have 100/100 but that is plenty for my needs. This would not have been offereed if Google hadn't started their Google Fiber biz.

I live in Richmond (southwest of Houston) and I have AT&T Uverse via Fiber as well. Don't think this had anything to do with Google having fiber though as all the providers including Comcast is on fiber out here.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
17,016
5,078
136
It's interesting to consider how Ted Cruz is actually furthering his anti-Obamacare agenda with this message. Notice how no one is discussing the merits of Obamacare, or that being compared to Obamacare should be a supposed good thing for net neutrality. Everyone is defending net neutrality but in a way that also distances it from Obamacare.

For Cruz's anti-Obamacare agenda, this denigration of Obamacare is a boon and represents another milestone in defeating support for the program.



That's only true if you think like Ted Cruz, which one should never do. Ever.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
We'll see.

There's a reason I've urged caution:



Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/sh...use-america-was-deceived/#21jgRHTfPhqT9KQ8.99

Again, I'm wary of "complicated" rules. We've seen how that worked out with Obamacare/ACA. If the above quote is accurate, I'd be wary of similar tactics regarding the internet. It may be only my opinion, but I believe a govt has an inherent urge to control things, everything. I've watched as many other govt's have, or attempted to, place controls on the internet. And I don't put it past our govt to do the same.

Once a govt starts placing rules on a thing they never stop. The rules may be benign at the beginning, but they always seem to grow to unrecognizable heights. People are clamoring for the govt to step in and stopped a tiered approach to net bandwidth. I understand and agree with the opposition to that, but I'm wary of utilizing govt rules to prevent because I fear those rules will eventually grow and morph into something I oppose even more. You always lose when making a 'deal with the devil'.

Fern
You've nailed it, 100%. Wait until these same supporters hear the .gov's arguments for taxing their Internet usage. We'll be told hey, somebody's got to pay for all this wonderful oversight we're doing so a small tax isn't too much to ask. Americans are dumb and getting dumber. It isn't even remotely difficult to get them to go along with nearly anything these days that comes from the government. Look at all the mindless supporters in this thread alone. The government wants to "fix" something that isn't broken and the govbots are all for it.

How is it that a government that is hugely mistrusted by so many in poll after poll can wield this kind of control over its people? That's something every supporter of net neutrality needs to ponder carefully. Here's to hoping you reach the correct conclusion. Unfortunately you won't because you've been trained to think the way the government wants you to think.

None of this is going to end well.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,754
16,091
146
Way to play it neutral like Poland, Obama. No good ever came from being neutral. This is AMERICA. If he had a lick of sense he would back off this issue and grease the wheels of the Comcast merger so they can accelerate their plans of maximizing my consumer experience and bring me in on the ground floor of dedicated Comcast customer service and reliability.

Admit it, you feel dirty after posting that, don't you. :D
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
It's interesting to consider how Ted Cruz is actually furthering his anti-Obamacare agenda with this message. Notice how no one is discussing the merits of Obamacare, or that being compared to Obamacare should be a supposed good thing for net neutrality. Everyone is defending net neutrality but in a way that also distances it from Obamacare.

For Cruz's anti-Obamacare agenda, this denigration of Obamacare is a boon and represents another milestone in defeating support for the program.

Agreed. The amount of disinformation spread wrt the ACA is astounding, and utterly shameless, as well.
 

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,218
2
76
You guys probably know a lot more about this than I, but I'd caution you to be careful:



I think it might be a good idea to see and understand these "complicated" rules before forming an opinion.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-...macare-for-the-internet-2014-11#ixzz3Ihz1JkWy

Ditto for the consequences of such a reclassification.

We've heard an awful lot of stuff from this admin which has turned out to be untrue and/or outright lies. I'm wary of govt intrusion into the internet.

Fern

we as consumers have NOTHING to gain, from allowing Comcast to charge people to move packets. the ONLY reason they decided to start, was because they are getting owned by Netflix, because they are not just an IP, they also sell media content.

Comcasts seeming end goal is make the internet much like they screw us now, with TV service? oh you want to get to anandtech....you need a higher tier that also includes 3 billion other sites you don't want, and only costs another 35 bucks a month.



and boomerang we already pax taxes on internet service, dude. check your bill.



while lack of choice is a major internet issue in the US, this is separate and will not be fixed by 'more choices' and could prevent that from happening, if everyone now has to pay insane fees to peer at all with the big ISP's
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,411
10,719
136
In principle I support net neutrality.

Why would a government bill or regulation stop there? Once they've tasted the cookie - grab the whole jar and run with it. Reclassification opens the door to not JUST net neutrality.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
In principle I support net neutrality.

Why would a government bill or regulation stop there? Once they've tasted the cookie - grab the whole jar and run with it. Reclassification opens the door to not JUST net neutrality.

That might be. Why didn't the government just keep the internet to begin with?
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,963
3,951
136
Way to play it neutral like Poland, Obama. No good ever came from being neutral. This is AMERICA. If he had a lick of sense he would back off this issue and grease the wheels of the Comcast merger so they can accelerate their plans of maximizing my consumer experience and bring me in on the ground floor of dedicated Comcast customer service and reliability.

lol