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

[Paratus]

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.

Well I just checked the latest dungeon masters guide and in Libertopia the magical "Utility Easements of Holding" can support 100's of cables in the same place.

But personally in the real world I'll be damned if I'm going to have half a dozen cable boxes in my backyard.

So I agree the only way real competition works is if the cable is a dumb pipe that others can compete by selling service on.

That's how we do power here.

 

[Engineer]

Well I just checked the latest dungeon masters guide and in Libertopia the magical "Utility Easements of Holding" can support 100's of cables in the same place.

But personally in the real world I'll be damned if I'm going to have half a dozen cable boxes in my backyard.

So I agree the only way real competition works is if the cable is a dumb pipe that others can compete by selling service on.

That's how we do power here.

Until Google says piss on them all and places mm wavelength transmitters (60-80GHz) in the neighborhoods and provides gigabit PLUS service without a damn wire going to anyone's house.

http://www.dailywireless.org/2014/10/17/google-fiber-going-wireless-2/

 

[xBiffx]

Until Google says piss on them all and places mm wavelength transmitters (60-80GHz) in the neighborhoods and provides gigabit PLUS service without a damn wire going to anyone's house.

http://www.dailywireless.org/2014/10/17/google-fiber-going-wireless-2/

Aaaaand we're back to a monopoly.

Nevermind, I'm probably wasting my time....

 

[DrDoug]

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

Do you consider the internet to be an essential service today? That not having it is almost like living in the dark without electricity? Big business didn't care one bit if rural America sat in the dark but the government (the representatives from those states) actually cared enough to do something about it for their people. Do you think the Republicans in rural America would do the same thing for their people today?

I don't, they love big business ( and the political donations) too much.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

But personally in the real world I'll be damned if I'm going to have half a dozen cable boxes in my backyard.

I have one box on the side of my house, to change from Comcast to Uverse or vice versa would require unplugging one ethernet connector and plugging in the other ethernet connector.

 

[jackstar7]

Aaaaand we're back to a monopoly.

Nevermind, I'm probably wasting my time....

Obviously you are. What else do you do here?

 

[jackstar7]

Do you consider the internet to be an essential service today? That not having it is almost like living in the dark without electricity? Big business didn't care one bit if rural America sat in the dark but the government (the representatives from those states) actually cared enough to do something about it for their people. Do you think the Republicans in rural America would do the same thing for their people today?

I don't, they love big business ( and the political donations) too much.

He doesn't consider it essential. He possibly doesn't see how it can level the playing field for smaller businesses IN rural areas and actually inspire innovation in the market, leading to the benefits of all glorious and wondrous capitalism (praise be its name).

 

[michal1980]

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.

LOL. Some government failed, so we need more of it.

 

[xBiffx]

Do you consider the internet to be an essential service today? That not having it is almost like living in the dark without electricity? Big business didn't care one bit if rural America sat in the dark but the government (the representatives from those states) actually cared enough to do something about it for their people. Do you think the Republicans in rural America would do the same thing for their people today?

I don't, they love big business ( and the political donations) too much.

No, that's the point. Providing electricity without a doubt raises (or raised as was the case for REA) the standard of living for those without it. It was unfeasible for private business to take on the financial burden of doing it and stay profitable. The whole government cared when big business didn't stuff is ridiculous nonsense. Its not about caring. Government is there to assure a certain standard of living for everyone and in this case, they were the only entity that could take on that burden. So in that case, it makes sense.

Internet doesn't even come close to that standard. Internet is a modern convenience, not a necessity. Lack of electricity today can be life threatening. The same isn't close to true for internet. So don't give me the government cares crap here.

 

[xBiffx]

Obviously you are. What else do you do here?

Wasting my time. But then I'm not the one who's delusional and thinks that's a reason to not carry on here.

 

[DrDoug]

No, that's the point. Providing electricity without a doubt raises (or raised as was the case for REA) the standard of living for those without it. It was unfeasible for private business to take on the financial burden of doing it and stay profitable. The whole government cared when big business didn't stuff is ridiculous nonsense. Its not about caring. Government is there to assure a certain standard of living for everyone and in this case, they were the only entity that could take on that burden. So in that case, it makes sense.

Internet doesn't even come close to that standard. Internet is a modern convenience, not a necessity. Lack of electricity today can be life threatening. The same isn't close to true for internet. So don't give me the government cares crap here.

The internet is used for communications, right? Is telephone service essential, like electricity? Our government thought so since the REA also covered telephone service.

Of course, naysayers of that day thought like you do today. It's a good thing for rural America that they did not prevail.

 

[xBiffx]

He doesn't consider it essential. He possibly doesn't see how it can level the playing field for smaller businesses IN rural areas and actually inspire innovation in the market, leading to the benefits of all glorious and wondrous capitalism (praise be its name).

Give me a break. Level the playing field in rural america....with internet. Are you serious?

 

[xBiffx]

The internet is used for communications, right? Is telephone service essential, like electricity? Our government thought so since the REA also covered telephone service.

Of course, naysayers of that day thought like you do today. It's a good thing for rural America that they did not prevail.

Basic communication is probably essential. What part about the internet is basic communication?

If someone chooses to live and/or work in rural america today, I don't think that lack of internet is killing them. Given that we still have phone service whether it be land line or cell, they are able to communicate just fine. Same goes for urban america.

 

[DrDoug]

He doesn't consider it essential. He possibly doesn't see how it can level the playing field for smaller businesses IN rural areas and actually inspire innovation in the market, leading to the benefits of all glorious and wondrous capitalism (praise be its name).

I wonder how he would have felt in the early 1930's if he lived in a rural area before the REA was enacted. I'm sure he is outraged that the government also extended telephone service to rural areas too.

That damned newfangled contraption is only good to chat on, nothing else. Farmers should be out in the fields growing my food, not chatting on the phone!

 

[DrDoug]

Basic communication is probably essential. What part about the internet is basic communication?

If someone chooses to live and/or work in rural america today, I don't think that lack of internet is killing them. Given that we still have phone service whether it be land line or cell, they are able to communicate just fine. Same goes for urban america.

I have family in rural areas and they consider it essential. How about you go without and tell us how unnecessary it is for them?

Oh, right... you couldn't tell us here, could you?

 

[xBiffx]

I wonder how he would have felt in the early 1930's if he lived in a rural area before the REA was enacted. I'm sure he is outraged that the government also extended telephone service to rural areas too.

That damned newfangled contraption is only good to chat on, nothing else. Farmers should be out in the fields growing my food, not chatting on the phone!

I wonder that too. Guess we'll never know.

404 outrage not found.

 

[xBiffx]

I have family in rural areas and they consider it essential. How about you go without and tell us how unnecessary it is for them?

Oh, right... you couldn't tell us here, could you?

I do too, and they would have no idea what you are talking about. In fact, the family and friends that live in the rural parts of this state do so to get away from all the crap you are talking about.

I've gone without internet and phone before, for months at a time. I survived fine. It was inconvenient for sure, but it didn't kill me. And that is all this crap is about, modern convenience, not necessity.

 

[DrDoug]

I wonder that too. Guess we'll never know.

404 outrage not found.

I do find it funny that you asked who will think of fly-over country and when it is pointed out that government did, you go and say that you don't give a shit if they get internet service.

Consistent conservative, ain'tcha?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I have family that lives in a rural area and they use Netzero Wireless for their internet provider.

 

[Engineer]

I do find it funny that you asked who will think of fly-over country and when it is pointed out that government did, you go and say that you don't give a shit if they get internet service.

Consistent conservative, ain'tcha?

LOL.

 

[xBiffx]

I do find it funny that you asked who will think of fly-over country and when it is pointed out that government did, you go and say that you don't give a shit if they get internet service.

Consistent conservative, ain'tcha?

Did the paying, you know taxes, point of the discussion mean nothing? I wasn't talking about providing internet to fly-over country (in fact I never mentioned that), I was talking about them having to pay for it for others but not getting it.

I don't think anyone should be providing internet to anyone as a utility or guarantee like electricity, but if we are going to start talking about the government getting involved in doing so, fly-over country is going to get screwed.

 

[zinfamous]

I do too, and they would have no idea what you are talking about. In fact, the family and friends that live in the rural parts of this state do so to get away from all the crap you are talking about.

I've gone without internet and phone before, for months at a time. I survived fine. It was inconvenient for sure, but it didn't kill me. And that is all this crap is about, modern convenience, not necessity.

you are confusing the mouthbreathers of the world that "need" the internet for their daily dose of Drudge idiocy and Perez Hilton idiocy, and to forward "Obamer is an ebul Muslim!" emails, with the world economy that requires an unfettered internet to operate properly.

Your argument is the type of argument that stupid people make.

 

[xBiffx]

you are confusing the mouthbreathers of the world that "need" the internet for their daily dose of Drudge idiocy and Perez Hilton idiocy, and to forward "Obamer is an ebul Muslim!" emails, with the world economy that requires an unfettered internet to operate properly.

Your argument is the type of argument that stupid people make.

If its required to operate, then paying for it shouldn't be a problem. Sounds like another business expense to me. An expense that the government already allows a deduction for. So again, what's the problem?

I require sand to operate by business of building sand castles. That should now be a utility and the government should regulate it.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

You wrote the lessons from other places apply here. If you meant something else, please clarify.

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

Providing what to who for what? This regulation allows for more competitors in the marketplace of internet service providers. That usually leads to lower prices and better service. The costs of changing this regulation would (broadly) be harming the ability of Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc to extract rents.

So unless you meant lower profits for telecoms to be the costs that rural America was going to pay, I'm not sure what you were talking about.

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

Rural areas are generally net beneficiaries of federal tax dollars. ie: they get more money back than they pay in. So no, broadly speaking, rural Americans are not paying for urban development, urban Americans are paying for rural development.

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.

Gotcha, so your argument is that the US government is uniquely inept. What evidence are you basing this on?

 

[DrDoug]

you are confusing the mouthbreathers of the world that "need" the internet for their daily dose of Drudge idiocy and Perez Hilton idiocy, and to forward "Obamer is an ebul Muslim!" emails, with the world economy that requires an unfettered internet to operate properly.

Your argument is the type of argument that stupid people make.

Yup. Really stupid people. Cars were once thought to be a luxury, not a necessity. Same with electricity and phone. Let's see ol' Biffy live without those today. If the people back then hadn't had the government step in they would have been left behind while the rest of the country flourished. My grandparents (both sides) lived on and operated farms back then. They praised FDR for bringing power and phone services into their lives.

Biffy needs to stop believing politicians when they say that government can't so something like this because history shows that they can and they did so successfully. It's his politicians who have failed him, not the government.