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

[zanejohnson]

Regarding everyone hating competition; no they don't. Consumers want competition, business don't and if they can they will stop it. With that basic fact in place, how do you propose changing what is in place now? Your post is stating what you believe but it doesn't address how we get there, does it?

Because you can't get where you want, you're just a consumer. You aren't going to get politicians to where you want, that's for damned sure. If you think your politicians are trying to do the job but are being blocked by _________ (insert evil fiends here) then you are a fool.

umm not trying to get in the middle of you two's squabble or anything.....

but didnt that just go full circle? you're saying,

"Because you can't get where you want, you're just a consumer. You aren't going to get politicians to where you want, that's for damned sure. If you think your politicians are trying to do the job but are being blocked by _________ (insert evil fiends here) then you are a fool."

but wouldn't net neutrality and common carrier, enforced by the FCC, effectively, do exactly that?

i mean, we either have....a lawful monopoly, or, we move towards common carrier, and FCC regulated net neutrality? right? am i missing something?

 

[pcgeek11]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...e-lied-to-the-stupid-american-people-n1916605

Don't dismiss the article based on the web site. The video is also linked.

Obamacare Architect: Yeah, We Lied to The "Stupid" American People to Get It Passed.

Jonathan Gruber, a professor at MIT and an architect of Obamacare. During a panel event last year about how the legislation passed, turning over a sixth of the U.S. economy to the government, Gruber admitted that the Obama administration went through "tortuous" measures to keep the facts about the legislation from the American people, including covering up the redistribution of wealth from the healthy to the sick in the legislation that Obamacare is in fact a tax. The video of his comments just recently surfaced ahead of the second open enrollment period for Obamacare at Healthcare.gov.

"You can't do it political, you just literally cannot do it. Transparent financing and also transparent spending. I mean, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes the bill dies. Okay? So it’s written to do that," Gruber said. "In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in, you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical to get for the thing to pass. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not."

This is the reasoning behind Ted Cruz's statements. This is also the reason I don't believe anything coming out of Washington DC until I actually see it in action. What is their real agenda? I wish I knew, but I doubt it has anything to do with my well being.

I for one think Net Neutrality on its face is a good thing. I also see where Mr. Cruz is coming from with all the proven lies about the ACA and the events that lead to its passing... The total lack of trust and transparency in this administration is astounding. It speaks volumes when I trust the cable company more than I do the Government.

 

[DrDoug]

umm not trying to get in the middle of you two's squabble or anything.....

but didnt that just go full circle? you're saying,

"Because you can't get where you want, you're just a consumer. You aren't going to get politicians to where you want, that's for damned sure. If you think your politicians are trying to do the job but are being blocked by _________ (insert evil fiends here) then you are a fool."

but wouldn't net neutrality and common carrier, enforced by the FCC, effectively, do exactly that?

i mean, we either have....a lawful monopoly, or, we move towards common carrier, and FCC regulated net neutrality? right? am i missing something?

Common carrier and net neutrality would make the most sense but I don't believe that is going to happen, not with the Republicans (with the help of some Democrats) in power.

Sen. Cruz will be sure to lead the way against ObamaNet, spawn of ObamaCare, and his followers are already agreeing with him.

Ted Cruz: 'Government is evil, trust me!'

When it comes out of his mouth, I believe him.

 

[ivwshane]

Removing or reducing the regulatory barriers that keep other would be ISP providers from moving into established markets that are dominated by the likes of Comcast and the gang. The easier it is for this other companies to move into the ISP arena the more competitive it becomes and the less protection dominant players have in using government to create laws that favor them (that are designed from the ground floor to help to increase the cost of entry into the market) the easier it is to say a Google, or Amazon to come out and change the field of play for those who have grown too big, too slow or too complacent to adapt to changing consumer trends, technology, etc. The more competition the more value consumers get for the money they spend in a market arena where they are not just left with 1 viable choice.

That's not what I've read. It's just really expensive to build out a network from scratch and unless you can get about 30% of the market it's not even worth it. Now add an existing competitor into the mix and trying to achieve that 30% market share becomes even harder and that's not even getting into all the frivolous lawsuits the big ISP's bring.

The issue isn't just about regulations it's the high cost of entry. Try getting a loan from a bank for infrastructure with no collateral, it's not going to happen if you are a new business, your best bet is getting funding from an investor, an investor who is willing to be patient as not only does the build out take a while but so does acquiring customers to the point of being profitable.

The regulations, btw, are usually with regards construction (like building codes), right of way, which directly relates to public safety and putting things back to how they originally were, so I'm not sure what regulations you'd be willing to give up to lower the cost of entry. Maybe lowering the cost of "pole attachment". Even still, when google rolled out its service in Kansas with a sweetheart deal, in terms of regulatory costs, it still cost them 84 million dollars which only includes the infrastructure costs and not the cost to connect to the customers home and any administrative costs.

So what's the lesson? Any company can come into a small or medium town and promise some kick backs to the city, like google does, to get the regulation costs down but they still have to deal with the high infrastructure costs and if they are lucky they won't have to deal with a competitor who will be suing them at every step of the way.

 

[zanejohnson]

Common carrier and net neutrality would make the most sense but I don't believe that is going to happen, not with the Republicans (with the help of some Democrats) in power.

Sen. Cruz will be sure to lead the way against ObamaNet, spawn of ObamaCare, and his followers are already agreeing with him.

Ted Cruz: 'Government is evil, trust me!'

When it comes out of his mouth, I believe him.

and you dont think the repubs are spinning it this way, ONLY BECAUSE, it was Obama that signed it into law, with executive order?

net neutrality is kind of an industry term... the people will be very quick to jump all over it if they intend to bastardize the definition.. so i'm really not too worried about that. the repubs can either lie about it, and then it's on THEM, and the people will see that.

or they can try to oppose it, which is irrational, and damaging to the public, and the people will also see that? it's kind of lose lose from the republican angle to try to go against it..which effectively makes the R's look like idiots? right?

i mean we saw how quick the internet was to criticize comparing it to "obamacare?" hence this thread.

i think Cruz just honestly thinks the American public is that stupid. Instead, it backfired on him

 

[DrDoug]

...

i think Cruz just honestly thinks the American public is that stupid. Instead, it backfired on him

I'll believe the backfiring when I see it. As far as it being on them if they screw us, I don't believe it. They basically shut down the government (at Cruz Missle's behest) and look what that got them; more seats and control of the Senate. Too many Americans either just don't care or are too stupid to see what is happening because they are too busy attacking their enemies.

I mean fellow citizens.

 

[sandorski]

ISP-Internet Service Provider

Pretty self explanatory. It's a company that provides a wire to a customer for a fee and ensures that customer has X Speed and Y Volume while connected to it.

What these companies are proposing is a complete rewriting of that relationship. Often with the intent of turning the Internet into their own Private Network that attempts to squeeze even more $ out of their customers and Internet Content Providers(carefully chosen depending on whether those Compete with similar services offered on their Private Network).

Anyone talking about "Competition" and opposed to Net Neutrality is pulling shit out of their ass.

 

[MagickMan]

Yes, that's exactly what would happen...

You're idiocy is only surpassed by your fuckwittery.

Oh, you learned a new word, that must have been difficult for a stupid twat like you. :\

 

[zanejohnson]

I'll believe the backfiring when I see it.

seriously?

http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/related/2lvjmx/ted_cruz_just_called_net_neutrality_obamacare_for/

 

[DucatiMonster696]

ISP-Internet Service Provider

Pretty self explanatory. It's a company that provides a wire to a customer for a fee and ensures that customer has X Speed and Y Volume while connected to it.

What these companies are proposing is a complete rewriting of that relationship. Often with the intent of turning the Internet into their own Private Network that attempts to squeeze even more $ out of their customers and Internet Content Providers(carefully chosen depending on whether those Compete with similar services offered on their Private Network).

Anyone talking about "Competition" and opposed to Net Neutrality is pulling shit out of their ass.

Net-neutrality won't change the fact that companies like Comcast, AT&T, Cox, etc are usually the only real alternatives if someone desires broadband access. Neither will it force these businesses to reduce their prices or improve their services at a faster rate than seeing more than 1 or 2 providers in a given area.

In fact what we have in the US today is and has been up to this point a scenario of net-neutrality for the most part but with ZERO competition. Of which the results so far have been pretty terrible in terms of what consumers are given rather than are able to demand if they had more choices. Outside of the few instances where we've seen Google or some other 3rd party providers roll through into a urban area and disrupt the monopoly (or in some cases the duopoly) there has been little cause for these big established players to change to mo in how they treat their customers or what they are willing to offer or even charge.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

That's not what I've read. It's just really expensive to build out a network from scratch and unless you can get about 30% of the market it's not even worth it. Now add an existing competitor into the mix and trying to achieve that 30% market share becomes even harder and that's not even getting into all the frivolous lawsuits the big ISP's bring.

The issue isn't just about regulations it's the high cost of entry. Try getting a loan from a bank for infrastructure with no collateral, it's not going to happen if you are a new business, your best bet is getting funding from an investor, an investor who is willing to be patient as not only does the build out take a while but so does acquiring customers to the point of being profitable.

The regulations, btw, are usually with regards construction (like building codes), right of way, which directly relates to public safety and putting things back to how they originally were, so I'm not sure what regulations you'd be willing to give up to lower the cost of entry. Maybe lowering the cost of "pole attachment". Even still, when google rolled out its service in Kansas with a sweetheart deal, in terms of regulatory costs, it still cost them 84 million dollars which only includes the infrastructure costs and not the cost to connect to the customers home and any administrative costs.

So what's the lesson? Any company can come into a small or medium town and promise some kick backs to the city, like google does, to get the regulation costs down but they still have to deal with the high infrastructure costs and if they are lucky they won't have to deal with a competitor who will be suing them at every step of the way.

Those infrastructure costs are often heavily influenced in many cases by having to deal with a competitor who as you stated might sue or lobby local government to keep their stranglehold. Which is done by making the permitting process a huge expensive pain so that the costs are high enough that they are not able to under-price their service with that of an established player in town. Or to use a anecdotal example (which occurred in SF), a competitor might resort to a fake grassroots NIMBY effort or encourage real NIMBY groups indirectly to astroturf the roll out of any new infrastructure. Which is something many local consumer advocates noted that Comcast was using SF as a means to stall AT&T's efforts and other smaller ISP's from rolling out fiber-optic boxes to offer faster service in just one neighborhood.

 

[sandorski]

Net-neutrality won't change the fact that companies like Comcast, AT&T, Cox, etc are usually the only real alternatives if someone desires broadband access. Neither will it force these businesses to reduce their prices or improve their services at a faster rate than seeing more than 1 or 2 providers in a given area.

In fact what we have in the US today is and has been up to this point a scenario of net-neutrality for the most part but with ZERO competition. Of which the results so far have been pretty terrible in terms of what consumers are given rather than are able to demand if they had more choices. Outside of the few instances where we've seen Google or some other 3rd party providers roll through into a urban area and disrupt the monopoly (or in some cases the duopoly) there has been little cause for these big established players to change to mo in how they treat their customers or what they are willing to offer or even charge.

I understand that, but that's a separate issue. If you want to end that, you need to Nationalize the Infrastructure. Create an agency in charge of Maintaining and Upgrading the lines. Fund them through usage fees of the ISPs and the selling of Licenses to all who want to Compete.

 

[DrDoug]

seriously?

http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/related/2lvjmx/ted_cruz_just_called_net_neutrality_obamacare_for/

Umm, that's reddit. Whoopee? Let's see if something real happens at wide variety of conservative sites and if it hits the news. Better yet, I'll believe it when I see him back down. As it is his spokeswoman doubled down on the original message.

I understand that, but that's a separate issue. If you want to end that, you need to Nationalize the Infrastructure. Create an agency in charge of Maintaining and Upgrading the lines. Fund them through usage fees of the ISPs and the selling of Licenses to all who want to Compete.

But... but that's evil government. You know they can't do anything right! Plus taxes! It's far better to let businesses rip us off than it is to regulate them because Free Market Jesus would cry.

Unfortunately, what you suggest has little to no chance of happening. Not with conservative politicians worshiping the all-mighty god of business as usual and the rest of us at each others throats over immigration, gay marriage and such. Those are more important issues than wringing the necks of the assholes who are selling us down the river.

Remember, we all love our own representatives, it's the representatives of other states who keep fucking us over! They are the enemy!!

 

[fskimospy]

Really tell me how free is the market for those looking to enter it as a broadband ISPs in most municipalities? The market today for ISP's in every major urban center is a product of local governments picking winners and losers and then walling off their chosen winner with a wall of regulations and licensing fees. You'd have be blind not to notice the uphill battle that companies like Google face even when they offer to lay down the infrastructure at no cost or at a low cost and established, well protected (via the regulatory laws and licensing fees they helped to craft and proposed) players like Comcast move to push up or stifle the lowering of the cost of entry.

Yes, large companies also abuse regulations in order to make entry into their markets more difficult. That in no way changes the fact that these huge telecoms merged competition out of existence all on their own. The reason why only time warner cable services certain parts of Brooklyn and why only cablevision services others is not because they each bought a separate borough president off. They deliberately don't compete.

If you look at the countries with the cheapest and fastest internet service one thing they generally have in common is heavy government regulation that is something akin to Title 2, where the owners of the lines are forced to lease them at reasonable prices to anyone who wants to provide services over them. This solves not only the problem of the fact that we don't want our streets endlessly torn up to run different cables, but it led to way more competition,plummeting prices, and better service.

We need MORE government in this, not less. The evidence from around the world is clear.

 

[Engineer]

Based on the competition argument thrown in here, sounds like there are illegal monopolies around the US. The federal government should step in and break up the laws allowing those monopolies as well as putting back net neutrality.

 

[xBiffx]

Yes, large companies also abuse regulations in order to make entry into their markets more difficult. That in no way changes the fact that these huge telecoms merged competition out of existence all on their own. The reason why only time warner cable services certain parts of Brooklyn and why only cablevision services others is not because they each bought a separate borough president off. They deliberately don't compete.

If you look at the countries with the cheapest and fastest internet service one thing they generally have in common is heavy government regulation that is something akin to Title 2, where the owners of the lines are forced to lease them at reasonable prices to anyone who wants to provide services over them. This solves not only the problem of the fact that we don't want our streets endlessly torn up to run different cables, but it led to way more competition,plummeting prices, and better service.

We need MORE government in this, not less. The evidence from around the world is clear.

This argument again? What part of the US isn't the rest of the world will folks like you never understand? Running internet to a country in Europe pales in comparison to providing that same level of internet service to the whole of the US. Urban areas are an easy win, but what about rural America? Oh that's right, who gives a shit about fly-over country, amiright?

But don't let all that get in the way of the more government cheerleading squad.

 

[moonbogg]

net neutrality is to obamacare
as apples are to _______? (cock socks)

anyone like to fill that blank?

Filled.

 

[fskimospy]

This argument again? What part of the US isn't the rest of the world will folks like you never understand?

As per usual, the US again lives in a magical bubble where the normal laws of economics don't apply. It's sad when conservatives fight so furiously about learning what works in other places and applying those lessons here.

I never cease to see you guys trot out an endless series of excuses where policies that work the world over (but happen to be liberal) could never work here. Social services, health care, environmental regulation, and now cable.

My guess is the next industry that will be magically inept in America will be... whatever liberals suggest might benefit from regulation in some way.

Running internet to a country in Europe pales in comparison to providing that same level of internet service to the whole of the US. Urban areas are an easy win, but what about rural America? Oh that's right, who gives a shit about fly-over country, amiright?

The rural areas that are already horribly served by current telecom incumbents? Yeah, that's a good argument. 80% of US citizens live in urban areas, btw. Vastly improving service for 80% of people while potentially not improving service for those who were already being shit on by the incumbent providers? That's a no-brainer.

But don't let all that get in the way of the more government cheerleading squad.

Don't let things like the fact that the UK serves as a perfect case study for cable regulation in this way. It used to have a system dominated by a noncompetitive incumbent who owned the wires. Prices were high and service sucked. They altered the regulation in pretty much precisely the way I suggested, more competition happened, prices went down, and service improved.

But yes, since competition was increased by more regulation and not less that has to be evil.

 

[xBiffx]

As per usual, the US again lives in a magical bubble where the normal laws of economics don't apply. It's sad when conservatives fight so furiously about learning what works in other places and applying those lessons here.

They apply, that's exactly my argument. How much more would you like to rape the taxpayer to pay for this?

The rural areas that are already horribly served by current telecom incumbents? Yeah, that's a good argument. 80% of US citizens live in urban areas, btw. Vastly improving service for 80% of people while potentially not improving service for those who were already being shit on by the incumbent providers? That's a no-brainer.

Fuck fly-over country it is. They still get to foot the bill so that urban American can have better internet, while reaping none of that. Thanks for proving my point.

Don't let things like the fact that the UK serves as a perfect case study for cable regulation in this way. It used to have a system dominated by a noncompetitive incumbent who owned the wires. Prices were high and service sucked. They altered the regulation in pretty much precisely the way I suggested, more competition happened, prices went down, and service improved.

But yes, since competition was increased by more regulation and not less that has to be evil.

LOL at you still living in a bubble where when the US government steps in to fix things and they are both fixed and become cheaper. Thanks for the laughs.

 

[DrDoug]

This argument again? What part of the US isn't the rest of the world will folks like you never understand? Running internet to a country in Europe pales in comparison to providing that same level of internet service to the whole of the US. Urban areas are an easy win, but what about rural America? Oh that's right, who gives a shit about fly-over country, amiright?

But don't let all that get in the way of the more government cheerleading squad.

Have you ever heard of the REA (Rural Electrification Administration)? It seems that our incompetent government thought of flyover country because big business wasn't interested in them.

From Wikipedia:

In the 1930s, the U.S. lagged significantly behind Europe in providing electricity to rural areas due to the unwillingness of power companies to serve farmsteads. Private electric utilities argued that the government had no right to compete with or regulate private enterprise, despite many of these utilities' having refused to extend their lines to rural areas, claiming lack of profitability. Private power companies set rural rates four times as high as city rates.

...

In 1934, less than 11% of US farms had electricity. (In Germany and France that same year, nearly 90% of farms had electricity.) By 1942, nearly 50% of US farms had electricity, and by 1952 almost all US farms had electricity.

Our government is who cared when nobody else did. Big electric didn't want anything to do with rural customers and ripped them off in the few places they did serve them.

Keep trusting big business to solve your problems, I'm sure they will once they can profit handsomely from it.

 

[TechBoyJK]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...e-lied-to-the-stupid-american-people-n1916605

Don't dismiss the article based on the web site. The video is also linked.

This is the reasoning behind Ted Cruz's statements. This is also the reason I don't believe anything coming out of Washington DC until I actually see it in action. What is their real agenda? I wish I knew, but I doubt it has anything to do with my well being.

I for one think Net Neutrality on its face is a good thing. I also see where Mr. Cruz is coming from with all the proven lies about the ACA and the events that lead to its passing... The total lack of trust and transparency in this administration is astounding. It speaks volumes when I trust the cable company more than I do the Government.

Net Neutrality is a good thing. What someone does in the name of it is a different thing.

Ted Cruz's statement is idiotic. It's a completely misguided comparison because he's trying to say 'net neutrality will be a bad thing IF obama gets his hands on it and treats it like obamacare' or something like that.

But he says 'net neutrality is like obamacare'. It's not. It simply isn't. And his saying it is, is a complete disservice to the Net Neutrality initiative.

 

[fskimospy]

They apply, that's exactly my argument. How much more would you like to rape the taxpayer to pay for this?

No, your argument was explicitly that the lessons learned elsewhere do not apply. If you thought they did, you would be agreeing with me.

Fuck fly-over country it is. They still get to foot the bill so that urban American can have better internet, while reaping none of that. Thanks for proving my point.

Foot what bill? What the hell are you talking about?

Also, since when has rural America been footing the bill for...well... anything in America?

LOL at you still living in a bubble where when the US government steps in to fix things and they are both fixed and become cheaper. Thanks for the laughs.

As usual, real-world examples are dismissed because they run contrary to your ideology. It's even funnier when you then claim other people are living in a bubble. Or wait, are we back to the idea that the US government is somehow magically, uniquely inept as compared to other governments?

 

[xBiffx]

Have you ever heard of the REA (Rural Electrification Administration)? It seems that our incompetent government thought of flyover country because big business wasn't interested in them.

From Wikipedia:

Our government is who cared when nobody else did. Big electric didn't want anything to do with rural customers and ripped them off in the few places they did serve them.

Keep trusting big business to solve your problems, I'm sure they will once they can profit handsomely from it.

Yes, I have heard of that. But how is internet even remotely on the same level as electricity?

 

[Engineer]

eskimospy, as eloquent and correct as your argument is, you're wasting your time.

 

[xBiffx]

No, your argument was explicitly that the lessons learned elsewhere do not apply. If you thought they did, you would be agreeing with me.

No my argument was exactly what I said it was, not what you are trying to imply that I said it was or what you think it was.

Foot what bill? What the hell are you talking about?

Also, since when has rural America been footing the bill for...well... anything in America?

So the government is going to accomplish all of this regulation and providing of internet to the masses for free?

So rural Americans don't pay taxes? Taxes that go to help for urban development?

As usual, real-world examples are dismissed because they run contrary to your ideology. It's even funnier when you then claim other people are living in a bubble. Or wait, are we back to the idea that the US government is somehow magically, uniquely inept as compared to other governments?

As usual, fantasy equates to the real world in your book. When the US goverment becomes the British Parliament your argument will be valid. The answer to your question is obvious to a great majority of people. There have been exceptions, but they are rare.