Ted Cruz: Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet

[xmikeman]

"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

- Senator Ted Cruz

Oh god. How the **** do these idiots get elected?

Cruz said that in response to this:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7...made-life-hell

[nutsy54]

How is someone an "idiot" for pointing out that Big Government intervention and regulation rarely produces the promised results?

[Retoaded]

"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

- Senator Ted Cruz

Oh god. How the **** do these idiots get elected?

Cruz said that in response to this:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7...made-life-hell

he is right. read this:


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...dity-american/

[xmikeman]

How is someone an "idiot" for pointing out that Big Government intervention and regulation rarely produces the promised results?

You don't think there's a problem with the way ISPs operate in the USA? Comcast is **** now, but I can't even imagine what kind of nonsense they'll be up to if they don't face stricter regulation. Internet should be considered a utility.

[Retoaded]

You don't think there's a problem with the way ISPs operate in the USA? Comcast is **** now, but I can't even imagine what kind of nonsense they'll be up to if they don't face stricter regulation. Internet should be considered a utility.

I think it depends on the amount of regulation. Setting some kind of guideline on speed/price or whatever is one thing, maybe handled at a local level like energy/water/sewer is...creating another bloated federal agency would be ridiculous.

[wrassler45]

guys mikeman is right..... it should be a utility like communist China....... not srs. People who are known for trying to promote their own agenda should not run anything public

[Ghosting]

Comparing net neutrality to obamacare was/is not wise. All it will do is bring out his opposition (not saying I like obama either). Now people are siding with what Cruz said which is more important to them to put down obama instead of focusing on what matters most, KEEPING NET NEUTRALITY.

[skullcrusher45]

I think it depends on the amount of regulation. Setting some kind of guideline on speed/price or whatever is one thing, maybe handled at a local level like energy/water/sewer is...creating another bloated federal agency would be ridiculous.

Obama asked the FCC to classify the internet as a public utility, placing it under the provisions of Title II of the Federal Communications Act. Title II holds that carriers (ISPs) can't "make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services".

This has nothing to do with creating a new federal agency to regulate the internet. It's a move to reclassify the internet from being a communication channel like cable tv (where providers can influence content) to something more like telephone (where providers can't influence content or throttle speeds).

[Ghosting]

mobile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YcwfZEurU0

[Ghosting]

Obama asked the FCC to classify the internet as a public utility, placing it under the provisions of Title II of the Federal Communications Act. Title II holds that carriers (ISPs) can't "make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services".

This has nothing to do with creating a new federal agency to regulate the internet. It's a move to reclassify the internet from being a communication channel like cable tv (where providers can influence content) to something more like telephone (where providers can't influence content or throttle speeds).

Repped.

[VicxSpecies]

Ted Cruz's wife is a VP at GS. He has a vested interests in corporations setting the standards by which you are allowed to browse the internet, and at what cost per tier. Yes, tiered internet just like tiered cable. Hope BB.com is part of that tier homie. Comparing NN to Obamacare is the wrong course, but it appeals to the little guy who thinks he works for them (LOL).

[Retoaded]

Obama asked the FCC to classify the internet as a public utility, placing it under the provisions of Title II of the Federal Communications Act. Title II holds that carriers (ISPs) can't "make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services".

This has nothing to do with creating a new federal agency to regulate the internet. It's a move to reclassify the internet from being a communication channel like cable tv (where providers can influence content) to something more like telephone (where providers can't influence content or throttle speeds).

Repped.

Not a new agency, but a new branch of an existing one. FCC taxes on your internet like on your phone, FCC growing in size to handle new responsibilities, etc. more bloated bureaucracy. article in Forbes today discussing it.

[caublet]

You don't think there's a problem with the way ISPs operate in the USA? Comcast is **** now, but I can't even imagine what kind of nonsense they'll be up to if they don't face stricter regulation. Internet should be considered a utility.

Nothing should be considered a utility. There should be private companies providing these services just like Internet companies. You're an idiot Opie if you believe the government will do this better.

[Patriots25]

I can see why people who agree to oppose net neutrality but it's our government and it's not going to go the way you think.

Inb4 misc gets banned from every ISPs
Inb4 journalism is sorted to ISPs desire
Inb4 backfire

[nutsy54]

You don't think there's a problem with the way ISPs operate in the USA? Comcast is **** now, but I can't even imagine what kind of nonsense they'll be up to if they don't face stricter regulation. Internet should be considered a utility.

You didn't answer my question - which was about Big Government, and the results typically produced when it decides to "help" or "fix a problem".

If you don't like Comcast, drop them and switch to a different ISP. In damn near every area, you have a choice.
http://internetprovidersbyzip.com/in...iders-zip-code
http://www.dslreports.com/searchhttp...oadbandmap.gov

[Ghosting]

Not a new agency, but a new branch of an existing one. FCC taxes on your internet like on your phone, FCC growing in size to handle new responsibilities, etc. more bloated bureaucracy. article in Forbes today discussing it.

IF they plan to have some type of bloated control, then yes I fully agree with you. The last I heard, what obama said was a suggestion to the FCC, but yes, if he (or anyone makes) a government agency to "oversee" keeping the internet on the same tier for all, then yes, I will be sick.

Edit : repped

[BrotatoChip]

You didn't answer my question - which was about Big Government, and the results typically produced when it decides to "help" or "fix a problem".

If you don't like Comcast, drop them and switch to a different ISP. In damn near every area, you have a choice.
http://internetprovidersbyzip.com/in...iders-zip-code
http://www.dslreports.com/searchhttp...oadbandmap.gov

[wailshark]

Read the response from the Oatmeal.

Fuark. I died.

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

[nutsy54]

(Post 17) ^^^ Interesting twist of the data, to claim that "2 or less" is bad, when 2 (by definition) means there's competition.

So, by your own chart, 70% have access and choice between two or more ISPs... (as of a year ago).

Meanwhile: http://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers

[The_Albatross]

How is someone an "idiot" for pointing out that Big Government intervention and regulation rarely produces the promised results?

I don't think you understand the issue. The government wouldn't be regulating the internet here, they would be stepping in and telling telecom companies that THEY aren't allowed to regulate the internet by crippling access to some sites in favor of competing sites in which they have financial interests.

[Retoaded]

(Post 17) ^^^ Interesting twist of the data, to claim that "2 or less" is bad, when 2 (by definition) means there's competition.

So, by your own chart, 70% have access and choice between two or more ISPs...

source of chart: the agency trying to take over control.

[Ghosting]

I get the impression that you guys are saying the government might use this as an excuse to step in. In which case, I agree, government control is not necessary (it was fine before) and potentially bad when someone has control of what you view.

[BDPfit]

You didn't answer my question - which was about Big Government, and the results typically produced when it decides to "help" or "fix a problem".

If you don't like Comcast, drop them and switch to a different ISP. In damn near every area, you have a choice.
http://internetprovidersbyzip.com/in...iders-zip-code
http://www.dslreports.com/searchhttp...oadbandmap.gov

B-but government solves everything for us! It's the most efficient machine out there!


People don't realize that this big government mess doesn't happen overnight. It's not like one day a law was signed saying government would control basically every aspect of our lives. It happens in little, "justifiable" steps. This is yet another one of those steps

[7rmr]

Fuark, wish I clicked this thread first instead of http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=165024951

Glad to see people recognizing that net neutrality is a good idea.

[Fist-Of-Freedom]

I don't think you understand the issue. The government wouldn't be regulating the internet here, they would be stepping in and telling telecom companies that THEY aren't allowed to regulate the internet by crippling access to some sites in favor of competing sites in which they have financial interests.

That is regulating. Regulating the regulators.

But regardless, you honestly think they wouldn't expand there influence on the internet once they get there dirty little paws inside with this?

We are screwed

[ImDangerous]

so why did republicans sponsor SOPA?

[dgarner58]

You didn't answer my question - which was about Big Government, and the results typically produced when it decides to "help" or "fix a problem".

If you don't like Comcast, drop them and switch to a different ISP. In damn near every area, you have a choice.
http://internetprovidersbyzip.com/in...iders-zip-code
http://www.dslreports.com/searchhttp...oadbandmap.gov

are you serious?

you know good and well that there is little choice and that providers are fairly restrictive in how they "share space". for instance you aren't going to get more than one cable provider in the same locality. zip code? yeah...but a zip code can be whole city in a lot of areas. so your choices really come down to cable or dsl...or if you are lucky - fiber (uverse or fios). if you want cable speeds then your choices are by far more often than not ONE cable company based on your neighborhood.

do you have some choice? yeah a little...but lets not misrepresent it as if there are 12 cable companies all fighting to do the right thing by the customer just waiting on your call.

in reality if net neutrality doesn't take hold people will pay more for content via the internet because those content providers are going to be charged more for their bandwidth they use. so netflix goes up...amazon goes up...hulu goes up...and guess who wins? cable tv...and att. they literally have no reason to not do this because they want to sell you tv.

ultimately we can all choose by just not watching tv at all...but realistically no one is going to do that...

[Rexy]

Things the government has done better than private businesses:




































fuk...any ideas?

[Retoaded]

Fuark, wish I clicked this thread first instead of http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=165024951

Glad to see people recognizing that net neutrality is a good idea.

I think net neutrality is a great concept. I also think cheaper and more accessible healthcare is a great concept.

I am skeptical of the federal government being able to manage anything effectively and typically when they try to it leads to more taxes/more expensive/less effective services.

[suave2000]

Obama asked the FCC to classify the internet as a public utility, placing it under the provisions of Title II of the Federal Communications Act. Title II holds that carriers (ISPs) can't "make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services".

This has nothing to do with creating a new federal agency to regulate the internet. It's a move to reclassify the internet from being a communication channel like cable tv (where providers can influence content) to something more like telephone (where providers can't influence content or throttle speeds).

buuu buuuuu buuuuu buuuu OBAMA is a communist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-repped