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

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Isn't it cute - now another FCC official has stepped forward and said that the day net neutrality passes is the first day the internet is taxed.

I'm glad this non-elected official can claim to know that congress will put a tax on the internet before it happens. I'm also glad he's fully prepared to throw out the "Democrats bad = tax tax tax" card with no backup. But MOST impressive is how his travel schedule has him going to Comast, ATT, and a number of other of the big telecom folks to give 'paid' speeches and participate in 'technology fairs' to discuss where the future of the industry is going.

*golf clap*

I'm embarrassed to say I vote republican on occasion.

If you think a tax isn't on its way if this becomes overseen by the government then you are simply insane.
 

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,580
1,629
136
If you think a tax isn't on its way if this becomes overseen by the government then you are simply insane.

Let's say that Republican FCC official is right and there will be a new tax; do you want to let the broadband providers do whatever they want (as they are now) and charge you up the ass for internet, maybe even breaking it up into different connection packages (tier arrangement) or would you rather pay a small tax and have them regulated like the telecoms? Me? I don't trust the providers one bit, nor do they have to run for (re)election. I would rather pay a small tax and have telecom-like regulation than allow the providers to keep screwing us over year after year.

Right now those are the only options I can see until someone comes up with something better.
 

tracerbullet

Golden Member
Feb 22, 2001
1,661
19
81
I would rather pay a small tax and have telecom-like regulation than allow the providers to keep screwing us over year after year.

Agreed. But there are enough people that get frothy over the word "tax" that anything involving one is automatically the worst of the options with no need to look any further.
 

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,580
1,629
136
Agreed. But there are enough people that get frothy over the word "tax" that anything involving one is automatically the worst of the options with no need to look any further.

Yeah, I know. There's a political party who uses the tax boogeyman to panic its supporters. It's awful funny that these same politicians depend on taxes to pay their salaries.

I guess they like some taxes, eh?
 

MixMasterTang

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
3,167
176
106
Yeah, I know. There's a political party who uses the tax boogeyman to panic its supporters. It's awful funny that these same politicians depend on taxes to pay their salaries.

I guess they like some taxes, eh?

Ohh they actually do love taxes, but they want to use the taxes not to support the less fortunate in our country but rather bomb more countries pushing them back into the dark ages so they can point out how much better off our poor people are compared to everyone else in the world.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Let's say that Republican FCC official is right and there will be a new tax; do you want to let the broadband providers do whatever they want (as they are now) and charge you up the ass for internet, maybe even breaking it up into different connection packages (tier arrangement) or would you rather pay a small tax and have them regulated like the telecoms? Me? I don't trust the providers one bit, nor do they have to run for (re)election. I would rather pay a small tax and have telecom-like regulation than allow the providers to keep screwing us over year after year.

Right now those are the only options I can see until someone comes up with something better.
Yes, a preemptive strike would be best. The scary possibilities of what corrupt corporations could potentially do calls for action to keep it from happening. While it's not broken now, if the government gets involved we can be certain that it will remain unbroken. How can one argue with a track record like the one our federal government has? Just ask a veteran or anyone who's benefited from the war on poverty.

Net neutrality: Throttling innovation, for the greater good


This nation seems to excel at churning out useful idiots. Pick a name for a political endeavor that will elicit a guttural response and watch the govbot minions swarm to it. All this Net Neutrality talk is meaningless anyway. It's on Obama's Christmas Winter Holiday list but he's going to get nothing but a lump of coal this year. In other words, much ado about nothing.

Support net neutrality. Throttle innovation - for the greater good!
 

smitbret

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2006
3,382
17
81
Actually it's the Republicans who have made it simple for me. As a small "i" independent voter (no party affiliation) I actually would like to have two political parties who compete on ideas. Instead we get one party that has no fucking idea of what they stand for and the other knows exactly what it stands for and lies all day about it. Go right ahead, you can embrace the lies all you want. Keep trusting them as I'm sure that they have your best interests at heart.

Really.

Which party is which?
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Yes, a preemptive strike would be best. The scary possibilities of what corrupt corporations could potentially do calls for action to keep it from happening. While it's not broken now, if the government gets involved we can be certain that it will remain unbroken. How can one argue with a track record like the one our federal government has? Just ask a veteran or anyone who's benefited from the war on poverty.

Net neutrality: Throttling innovation, for the greater good


This nation seems to excel at churning out useful idiots. Pick a name for a political endeavor that will elicit a guttural response and watch the govbot minions swarm to it. All this Net Neutrality talk is meaningless anyway. It's on Obama's Christmas Winter Holiday list but he's going to get nothing but a lump of coal this year. In other words, much ado about nothing.

It's not broken now? What they might potentially do?

You, my good man, need to pay more attention.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
lol. It's cute that there are still some posters on an IT web site that actually think the Internet is "not broken" or that we're protecting against some unrealized "potential" threat by implementing net neutrality when there is documented and verifiable evidence of ISP's throttling and shakedown of content providers like Netflix. Welcome to years ago.

Granted, it certainly costs money to provision bandwidth to customers and the associated networking equipment costs, and peering agreements probably can't stay the way they are, but that's more an internal ISP/content provider issue and certainly should not result in tiered service for end users. That's why regulating ISP's under Title II is critical, as long as it's done with a light touch. Because there actually is something to be said for not fucking with something that already works so well.
 
Last edited:

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Let's say that Republican FCC official is right and there will be a new tax; do you want to let the broadband providers do whatever they want (as they are now) and charge you up the ass for internet, maybe even breaking it up into different connection packages (tier arrangement) or would you rather pay a small tax and have them regulated like the telecoms? Me? I don't trust the providers one bit, nor do they have to run for (re)election. I would rather pay a small tax and have telecom-like regulation than allow the providers to keep screwing us over year after year.

Right now those are the only options I can see until someone comes up with something better.

And its any wonder that Cruz calls this the Obamacare for the internet....
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,224
306
126
Let's say that Republican FCC official is right and there will be a new tax; do you want to let the broadband providers do whatever they want (as they are now) and charge you up the ass for internet, maybe even breaking it up into different connection packages (tier arrangement) or would you rather pay a small tax and have them regulated like the telecoms? Me? I don't trust the providers one bit, nor do they have to run for (re)election. I would rather pay a small tax and have telecom-like regulation than allow the providers to keep screwing us over year after year.

Right now those are the only options I can see until someone comes up with something better.

Oh, they'll be right about the taxes. Why? Because they're already proposing a huge new tax on the telecoms, just a day or two after this other discussion, to support "Internet Technology in Schools". They have no fucking shame at all. Of course, technically that tax is going to be on phone communications, but you know what they're doing when it comes this closely on the heels of their comments about net neutrality.

R's are no better than D's, and there isn't fuck all you can do. Yet.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Isn't it cute - now another FCC official has stepped forward and said that the day net neutrality passes is the first day the internet is taxed.

I'm glad this non-elected official can claim to know that congress will put a tax on the internet before it happens. I'm also glad he's fully prepared to throw out the "Democrats bad = tax tax tax" card with no backup. But MOST impressive is how his travel schedule has him going to Comast, ATT, and a number of other of the big telecom folks to give 'paid' speeches and participate in 'technology fairs' to discuss where the future of the industry is going.

*golf clap*

I'm embarrassed to say I vote republican on occasion.

Are you sure Congress would need to pass a bill so that the FCC, or whomever, could tax (or apply a fee) the internet?

Regulatory agencies already seem to much ability in this area without requiring new legislation.

Fern
 

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,580
1,629
136
And its any wonder that Cruz calls this the Obamacare for the internet....

Instead of parroting the latest Republican "WOLF! WOLF! THE WOLF IS CHASING THE SHEEP!" that was specifically crafted to scare the stupid villagers, how about giving us YOUR solution to the problem of providers throttling users, extorting popular online sites like Netflix (that you end up paying for, thus paying your provider TWICE for your service) and the internet being tiered into different 'lanes'?

Give us YOUR prescription for what ails us, not the latest wingnut "WOLF! WOLF!"
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
how can another startup even have a chance of competing with netflix?

Net neutrality doesn't make that all of a sudden possible either. Netflix has the market cornered. Even VUDU, Redbox, or Prime can't compete. So stop trying to make net neutrality something that it isn't.
 

PliotronX

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 1999
8,883
107
106
Just wow, I am not a particular fan of the President's but I am glad he believes the Internet should remain as designed.
 

loganone

Member
Jul 29, 2008
55
0
0
Just wow, I am not a particular fan of the President's but I am glad he believes the Internet should remain as designed.

If he really believed that then he wouldn't have appointed some former crony lobbyist to head the FCC, a guy who essentially bought the job by raising money for Obama's campaign. This was nothing more than cheap publicity stunt to appease the few naive idiots who still believe his lies, nothing is actually going to come of it.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Net neutrality doesn't make that all of a sudden possible either. Netflix has the market cornered. Even VUDU, Redbox, or Prime can't compete. So stop trying to make net neutrality something that it isn't.

How is it not what he was saying?

Netflix is a market-leader, but they don't have a monopoly and there are alternatives that do compete.

And they can compete because they're not also having to pay providers extortion fees to do so, but because Netflix paid, you can bet it's a matter of time before that's another hurdle to entering the market and trying to compete.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
How is it not what he was saying?

Netflix is a market-leader, but they don't have a monopoly and there are alternatives that do compete.

And they can compete because they're not also having to pay providers extortion fees to do so, but because Netflix paid, you can bet it's a matter of time before that's another hurdle to entering the market and trying to compete.

I read it as he was saying that net neutrality would allow start-up to compete with Netflix because right now, the cost to operate companies like Netflix due to what they have to pay ISP's is too much for anyone else to endure and therefore ever compete with Netflix.

Net neutrality isn't going to change that. Netflix isn't cornering the market just because they are the only ones that can afford to operate under the current business conditions that some think net neutrality is going to "fix." Net neutrality isn't going to make a non or less competitive market all of a sudden more competitive just because it may eliminate certain fees.
 

master_shake_

Diamond Member
May 22, 2012
6,425
292
121
I read it as he was saying that net neutrality would allow start-up to compete with Netflix because right now, the cost to operate companies like Netflix due to what they have to pay ISP's is too much for anyone else to endure and therefore ever compete with Netflix.

Net neutrality isn't going to change that. Netflix isn't cornering the market just because they are the only ones that can afford to operate under the current business conditions that some think net neutrality is going to "fix." Net neutrality isn't going to make a non or less competitive market all of a sudden more competitive just because it may eliminate certain fees.

i think you misunderstood what i said.

net neutrality makes it so isp's can NOT force companies to pay them to get access to their customers.

i'm sure you knew that though.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
i think you misunderstood what i said.

net neutrality makes it so isp's can NOT force companies to pay them to get access to their customers.

i'm sure you knew that though.

I completely understood what you were saying. I also understand that this is one of the supposed benefits of net neutrality. But how is that alone going to make it possible for some start-up to compete with Netflix where they can't now because they have to pay.
 

master_shake_

Diamond Member
May 22, 2012
6,425
292
121
I completely understood what you were saying. I also understand that this is one of the supposed benefits of net neutrality. But how is that alone going to make it possible for some start-up to compete with Netflix where they can't now?

anyone can start up whatever they'd like, netflix was just an example.

my whole thing was if any existing company had to pay to get access to an isps network how could another company in the same field do the same?

it's not just netflix it's everything.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
i think you misunderstood what i said.

net neutrality makes it so isp's can NOT force companies to pay them to get access to their customers.

i'm sure you knew that though.

I don't get why people don't understand this. The companies that want to get rid of net neutrality are the same ones that fight against pay-as-you-watch cable. You want one specific channel for the only thing you like to watch? Well, you need our super-ultra-premium package that doubles your bill and gives you 900 channels you don't want first!