Cruz- net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet

[EVT1]

I thought this was a joke at first but nope:

www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/10/obama-wants-ban-on-internet-fast-lane-deals/

Imagine that- the GOP darlings are coming down on the side of the industry and promoting the exact opposite of freedom on the net.  So instead of the net remaining free- they prefer the ISP's  be able to control content at will, to pick winners and losers in a monopoly market, to allow the industry to inflate prices at will, and, of course, allow the consumers in this country to pay even more for shitty service than it does now.  Cruz has it right- it is just like healthcare- he fights to make sure US citizens get the most expensive and inadequate care in the modern world.  Now he fights to make sure we get the slowest and most expensive internet access in the world.  But hey- I am sure he can afford top tier service, just like he can afford top tier health care- and fuck the rest of us.

[Ryan]

When I first heard the argument, it was an anti-net neutrality article that argued that ISPs should be able to throttle high bandwidth internet users in order to improve speed for everyone else.  Sounds good in theory....but everyone knows it will end up with a super highway for the big corps and a dusty dirt road for everyone else.

I hate comcast...I hate AT&T...so I'm in favor of anything that "hurts" them 

[Deleted]

I disagree with the Title.

Net Neutrality works and is fair for the consumer... Obamacare doesn't work and isn't fair to the consumer.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples to fish-hooks.

[dondub]

The ACA is working fine for millions. Perhaps if the governors of Repo states would cooperate, millions more, especially those poor Black folk down south, would also benefit.

Richard....why do those Christian govs still let people die? I just don't get it.

[djAdvocate]

if Cruz were less influential, he would be a lot funnier.

[tallguy]

Nov 10, 2014 23:06:08 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I disagree with the Title.

Net Neutrality works and is fair for the consumer... Obamacare doesn't work and isn't fair to the consumer.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples to fish-hooks.

Take it up with Ted Cruz.  It's his quote.  I doubt that'll help you though.  Any arguments from someone that can be described with the words, "Tea-Party favorite" are pretty much guaranteed to be easily dismissed.

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

Uhhh, yeah.  Because you are trying to ensure that providers can SLOW DOWN the Internet.  (Unless one pays a lot more.)  Makes sense.  If you're an idiot.  Which, Mr. Cruz, you are. 

[Deleted]

Nov 11, 2014 0:52:00 GMT -5 dondub said:

The ACA is working fine for millions. Perhaps if the governors of Repo states would cooperate, millions more, especially those poor Black folk down south, would also benefit.

Richard....why do those Christian govs still let people die? I just don't get it.

Correction: The ACA has fooled millions.Those that are "helped" by it are helped at a cost that is completely unsustainable. And when it finally collapses, they will be worse off than they were when it started.




That collapse IS avoidable, as long as Obamacare is stopped, and any damage caused up to that point is addressed, before the collapse happens.

[mmhmm]

Nov 11, 2014 0:52:00 GMT -5 dondub said:

The ACA is working fine for millions. Perhaps if the governors of Repo states would cooperate, millions more, especially those poor Black folk down south, would also benefit.

Richard....why do those Christian govs still let people die? I just don't get it.

How do you expect Richard to know that? Ask the governors in question. Richard, like the rest of us, can't read minds.

[dondub]

I thought he might have an opinion as he has so many others about the ACA.

[mmhmm]

Nov 11, 2014 11:17:57 GMT -5 dondub said:

I thought he might have an opinion as he has so many others about the ACA.

You didn't ask him about the ACA. You asked him about governors and why they do what they do. There's no way he can know that; nor, should he be guessing what someone else is thinking. If you're looking for an argument try to keep it logical, eh?

[rockon]

I can't imagine that anyone here would believe a link from Fox News! Obama said they don't tell the truth.

[The Captain]

Nov 10, 2014 22:29:12 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I thought this was a joke at first but nope:

www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/10/obama-wants-ban-on-internet-fast-lane-deals/

Imagine that- the GOP darlings are coming down on the side of the industry and promoting the exact opposite of freedom on the net.  So instead of the net remaining free- they prefer the ISP's  be able to control content at will, to pick winners and losers in a monopoly market, to allow the industry to inflate prices at will, and, of course, allow the consumers in this country to pay even more for shitty service than it does now.  Cruz has it right- it is just like healthcare- he fights to make sure US citizens get the most expensive and inadequate care in the modern world.  Now he fights to make sure we get the slowest and most expensive internet access in the world.  But hey- I am sure he can afford top tier service, just like he can afford top tier health care- and fuck the rest of us.

Getting back to the OP...

This is one area where I think President Obama's law background will serve him well.  I actually agree with the President's stance on some of this.  The internet is a public utility and should be subject to the same type of oversight as other public utilities.

OTOH I have no problem with ISP's being permitted to charge more for faster speeds, isn't that what we do now with all other services?  You want more of something, you pay more for something. I don't agree with ISP's being able to block content (thus screening what I can access).

I'm probably missing something but how is this different from phone companies charging more for long distance vs local service?

[billisonboard]

Nov 11, 2014 14:04:26 GMT -5 The Captain said:

...

I'm probably missing something but how is this different from phone companies charging more for long distance vs local service?

The telephone company does not connect you to different phone numbers at a different rate of speed based on companies paying them to do so. I will be connected to Home Depot no faster or slower than Joe's Hardware.

[rockon]

Just for the record I don't have an opinion on this suggestion yet but I'm sure we will hear plenty of exaggerations from both sides for quite awhile.

I do however agree with Obama's verbal position that we need to reduce the way monopolies are allowed to form and operate in our country now. It is one of the fundamental problems we have in our capitalistic society.

[The Captain]

Nov 11, 2014 14:19:39 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Nov 11, 2014 14:04:26 GMT -5 The Captain said:

...

I'm probably missing something but how is this different from phone companies charging more for long distance vs local service?

The telephone company does not connect you to different phone numbers at a different rate of speed based on companies paying them to do so. I will be connected to Home Depot no faster or slower than Joe's Hardware.

Ok, then how about gas or water companies.  You use more, you pay more.

Even with the phone companies, you make more long distance calls, you get charged more.  I think it's reasonable to charge more for higher speeds.

[billisonboard]

Nov 11, 2014 14:28:34 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Nov 11, 2014 14:19:39 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

The telephone company does not connect you to different phone numbers at a different rate of speed based on companies paying them to do so. I will be connected to Home Depot no faster or slower than Joe's Hardware.

Ok, then how about gas or water companies.  You use more, you pay more.

Even with the phone companies, you make more long distance calls, you get charged more.  I think it's reasonable to charge more for higher speeds.

You are looking at the wrong side of the relationship. If you choose to have a faster connection to everything, being charged for that is reasonable. But what is being discussed is different. It is about the people who provide you access to the Internet getting together with those who you visit on that Internet and deciding at what speed you will be connected. It would be like an energy company giving a Carrier furance enough power to heat your home to 74 degrees but limiting the power to a Lennox furance so it won't warm your home past 68.

[The Captain]

Nov 11, 2014 15:02:34 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Nov 11, 2014 14:28:34 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Ok, then how about gas or water companies.  You use more, you pay more.

Even with the phone companies, you make more long distance calls, you get charged more.  I think it's reasonable to charge more for higher speeds.

You are looking at the wrong side of the relationship. If you choose to have a faster connection to everything, being charged for that is reasonable. But what is being discussed is different. It is about the people who provide you access to the Internet getting together with those who you visit on that Internet and deciding at what speed you will be connected. It would be like an energy company giving a Carrier furance enough power to heat your home to 74 degrees but limiting the power to a Lennox furance so it won't warm your home past 68.

Ahh, now I get it.  Thanks!

[billisonboard]

Nov 11, 2014 15:18:53 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Nov 11, 2014 15:02:34 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

You are looking at the wrong side of the relationship. If you choose to have a faster connection to everything, being charged for that is reasonable. But what is being discussed is different. It is about the people who provide you access to the Internet getting together with those who you visit on that Internet and deciding at what speed you will be connected. It would be like an energy company giving a Carrier furance enough power to heat your home to 74 degrees but limiting the power to a Lennox furance so it won't warm your home past 68.

Ahh, now I get it.  Thanks!

Now we just have to hope that I understand it correctly.

[gooddecisions]

The oatmeal summed it up nicely:
theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

[dondub]

mmmmhmmm,

I guess you don't consider the repo governors in 23 states not cooperating with the Medicaid expansion for the poorest Americans, some of whom will die, as relevant to the ACA.

Suit yourself.

 I was politely just asking Richard for his opinion. He has plenty so thought he might have one on that.

Sorry if that fluffed the down.