Does Ted Cruz not understand Net Neutrality?

[YALE]

Bro, it's pretty obvious the only part of it im against is the government part.

Aren't you prior service?

[matts5.0]

But you're all for the corporation part continuing to fuck us? Cool.

Dude chill there's already legislation.
But honestly, my internet works fine along with 95% of other people's. This seems like a solution to a problem that to most is non existent. Now how about we just enforce the laws that Yale says are on the books, i don't know, I haven't looked. Would that not be sufficent?

[matts5.0]

Aren't you prior service?

Yes. I was witness first hand to government waste and ineffectiveness.

[CexMashean]

Dude chill there's already legislation.
But honestly, my internet works fine along with 95% of other people's. This seems like a solution to a problem that to most is non existent. Now how about we just enforce the laws that Yale says are on the books, i don't know, I haven't looked. Would that not be sufficent?

I'll let you know when we catch up to the rest of the world, and we don't have coprs trying to charge people for "fast lane" service, while systematically limiting the speeds of others based on web services they already pay to use.

We are so fucking far behind in the cellular and fiber optic market compared to the rest of the world that it is a god damn embarrassment.

[Forever_frost]

I'll let you know when we catch up to the rest of the world, and we don't have coprs trying to charge people for "fast lane" service, while systematically limiting the speeds of others based on web services they already pay to use.

We are so fucking far behind in the cellular and fiber optic market compared to the rest of the world that it is a god damn embarrassment.

Then you are free to start your own company, compete and offer these speeds for a price you think is fair.

Get started.

[Forever_frost]

Irrelevant quote is irrelevant. You might as well have quoted a Klingon proverb. Also, define irony. You're using a quote maligning critics of government interference to complain about imaginary government interference. You have gone full potato.

EDIT: I guess you're also calling anyone who's an advocate of net neutrality a socialist? That's a fine ad hominem attack, but it's also both false and irrelevant. Constitution on, constitutionator.

Actually no. I'm saying that those who claim that my aversion to the federal government acting means something shouldn't be done., Perhaps it should but the federal government shouldn't touch it. These people you say are being screwed have the power to force companies to move faster and more efficiently than the government. If there is this outcry, the people will make companies do their bidding, government is not needed.

[YALE]

Actually no. I'm saying that those who claim that my aversion to the federal government acting means something shouldn't be done., Perhaps it should but the federal government shouldn't touch it. These people you say are being screwed have the power to force companies to move faster and more efficiently than the government. If there is this outcry, the people will make companies do their bidding, government is not needed.

So who is going to fix it? Big telecoms? They're not going to let any small companies in the innovate, and, "move," as you put it. Allowing markets to work doesn't mean choosing between always and never intervening. It means intervening when necessary, and as a last resort. Left to their own devices, the regional monopolies that make up the ISP's in this country would squeeze small businesses out, as they present a natural barrier to entry for small firms. I'm not saying any should be broken up. I'm saying that they should not be allowed to run roughshod over their customers. I'm not saying every one does, I'm saying that if they do, you shouldn't have to record your conversations with a customer service rep, and have an hours-long confrontation with them about it. You beat an often hit drum that the market should be left to its own devices, and customers should vote with their feet. Without a level playing field, customers can't do that. Without a clear indication from regulators about what's expected, we won't have that level playing field. Again, if businesses can't compete on a level playing field, they shouldn't be in their chosen business. If the model doesn't make money at all any more, the market should be allowed to evolve, not artificially propped up. That's where growth comes in. If we're going to cite classical liberals, I much prefer to take a Malthusian viewpoint, and make these firms sink or swim on their own merits, on a level playing field.

I think at this point, it bears mentioning that this is a massive flip flop on the part of the Obama administration. Before the election, he was against net neutrality, and Fox News was for it. That makes this thread baffling. I figured neocons would be crying about the flip flop, and about Obama appropriating your position, but instead, Ted Cruz didn't bat an eye and flip flopped right with Obama, and every republican on the interwebz has followed in lock-step. This is the second political pole reversal this issue has experienced, and it makes me think no one understands what the fuck is going on.

[Forever_frost]

If it's about government regulating just about anything, write me down as not for it. No flip flop necessary.

[YALE]

If it's about government regulating just about anything, write me down as not for it. No flip flop necessary.

That's a cop out. Be intellectually honest with yourself, and actually reason out the issue at hand. Otherwise, this is all I'll see when you post:

[CexMashean]

Then you are free to start your own company, compete and offer these speeds for a price you think is fair.

Get started.

Do you even understand how illogical and oblivious you are about this situation?

[Broncojohnny]

But you guys work off of "what ifs". Here's a "it did happen, and here's theit power", but yet this some how isn't enough? This is them, in the practice of doing what net neutrality is trying to prevent. But lets just ignore it?

fucking lollercoaster on you guys.

Well, you can fucking "lollercoaster" all you want, a single incident of something doesn't warrant action by the government.

[CexMashean]

Well, you can fucking "lollercoaster" all you want, a single incident of something doesn't warrant action by the government.

It's not a single incident. Not by far.
Stick that head further into the sand. You must get a good connection down there that even makes South Korea and Sweden jealous.

[exlude]

Not only this but if these ISP's can do this for financial gain then why aren't they? Why do I have a FIOS connection right now that is neutral if there is so much money to be made by throttling my connection based on content? It all seems like a bunch of bullshit scaremongering. Where is all this abuse at and if it hasn't happened yet (for whatever reason) then why not wait until there is an actual problem to start dolling out new regulatory standards or whatever the fuck these guys want to pass?

Going back to what Boost Addict said, I am just not buying it. Fool me once and all that....

It's already happened though. Netflix, one of the largest content providers on the internet, was throttled by the major ISPs. They offered to set up peering with these ISPs but were refused. It wasn't until Netflix agreed to massive ransoms that they were allowed to peer and service returned to normal. (note: I typed this before I read the rest of the thread)

In 2007 Comcast was caught interfering with P2P traffic.

Consumers of both mobile and home broadband are already throttled once they reach certain data amounts as well, for no legitimate reason. This was mostly kept secret until revealed by outside sources. Those unlimited plans where you can download X amount of data then are throttled to a speed that will prevent you from downloading anything for the rest of the month.

It was a concern back when Comcast acquired NBC universal, and part of the deal was Comcast would adhere to the principles of net neutrality. That will last until 2019 and they've already started breaking their agreement.

In this thread I still see people beating their collective heads against the wall chanting that the government will ruin it if they run the ISPs. THAT'S NOT HOW THIS WORKS.

This really isn't about a ton more regulation over the internet. It's based on improving the loopholes from the 2010 Open Internet Order that Verizon was able to get removed by a court in early 2014. It's about not deregulating the internet so ISPs can create service tiers. Classifying the internet as a utility, as it has come to be, is a good start on insuring equal access without paywalls or private censorship.

[exlude]

Then you are free to start your own company, compete and offer these speeds for a price you think is fair.

Get started.

Disband the monopolies and make it a competitive marketplace and that sounds good. Wait, that's regulation.

[racrguy]

Some of you motherfucks don't have a single clue what you're talking about...