Obama speaks out in favor of Net Neutrality; Ted Cruz likens it to "Obamacare"

For some further edjumicating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_medicine

 

It's already been addressed, but you are missing a huge chunk of the history this nation.

If you don't understand that there was widespread disease and death in this nation because of the lack of regulations that we have with the FDA prior to there being an FDA, then it's no wonder you have the attitude you have about it.

Please do some more research before voting again.

 

"Deregulated" electricity came with a whole bunch of new regulations. For instance, electrical utilities can't get together and decide to "freeze you out" and deny you electricity (or degrade the quality of electricity you receive), simply because they don't like you, or want to put their support behind your competitors.

 

Good question. Title II would allow the consumer to access any data except "illegal" data. But what is "illegal"? Kiddie p*rn, for sure. But what else?

Someone who knows more than me needs to chime in, but my guess is that the FCC can't independently make up things that are "illegal" on the internet. Congress would have to do that. And I think that is a danger. I mean, these assholes can't even get themselves to agree to reign in the NSA.

What I would say, however, is that passing Title II makes censorship less likely, not more.

 

Exactly. This is exactly what it means to be regulated "like a utility." If a service is deemed to be essential- like water, electricity, and phone, then companies that provide that service aren't allowed to discriminate.

The debate is on whether to declare the internet "essential."

 

The gov't does more to regulate things under information sources than it does things it regards as a utility. If this is really your concern that it seems you would rather the gov't classify the internet as a utility rather than an information source, not the other way around.

 

This is the core of my fear with regulation. As many analogies we want to compare to the internet, the reality is the internet is a very different beast than anything we've experienced.

The answer is yes, they can. They can force providers to monitor the traffic. It wont be long before the big corporations take advantage and lobby for their special interests. Just imagine getting a $100.00 fine for downloading a pirated movie or song instead of getting a cease and desist letter from your ISP. Congress has been legislating much of what goes on with the internet. With regulation, they now have an executive arm. There is simply too much abuse that can happen for us to simply wave one solution fits all legislation.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/12/us-at-t-regulations-internet-idUSKCN0IW1JC20141112

Personally I do not think AT&T ever intended to do any massive roll out. Its grand standing like Google Fiber.

 

Cruz facebook responses:
http://samuel-warde.com/2014/11/facebook-responses-ted-cruz-post-will-make-day/

 

Isn't congress equally likely to pass censorship laws with or without Title II regs? Or does an FCC armed with Title II enable congress to censor more?

 

Nolan, I am really surprised you posted this nonsense, knowing how in tuned you are with the debate. Not only is it misleading, but much of it is factually incorrect.
Net Neutrality is quickly turning into a political battle when it absolutely has nothing to do with politics. Its sad this has turned into a Republicans vs Liberal debate. When this happens, everyone becomes misinformed, just as this article illustrates.
For example, liberals claim NN is not about regulating competition, only preventing ISP's from throttling the internet into lanes. This article clearly states making the internet into a utility will force competition. Which is it??

Incorrect. Nearly every place there is cable, there is DSL. There is competition for cable. Not only is there competition, this competition has brought down prices. DSL prices used to run $50-$60 a month, but competition has forced DSL to bring prices down as low as $15 a month. While the speeds aren't into the 100Mbps, very often DSL offers speeds of 12Mbps, plenty enough for the casual user. Even a basic cable of 30Mbps can be found for $30 a month.

Now once you get out of cable territory, yes, competition almost becomes non-existent. Comcast hating is a fad. Are they a crappy company, absolutely. Its fun to hate on them and to spew out inaccuracies. Where is the outcry for those in semi-rural america who are stuck on DSL and TRULY have crappy internet, where on a good day, you may only have 3Mbps. These upgrades can be done reasonably, but they refuse.

Now do not confuse my comment into believing that we do not need more competition and we need better services. We absolutely do. But lets not distort the argument with inaccuracies. When we do this, then yes, Cruz's comparison to Obamacare is accurate. Making the internet a utility will not fix speeds and competition, just as Obamacare promised lower prices and better quality. We know where that ended up for many. The moment the internet becomes a utility, the ISPs will start tacking on more "regulatory" fees and our bills will go up. Trust me on this! The ISPs WILL punish the consumers for allowing this to happen.

I do not foreseeing it killing jobs, or at least very many. What the ISP's will do is cut jobs to make a statement.

However, depending on the regulation, it could put smaller startups out of business or stifle their growth. This will primarily be fiber initiatives who are struggling to stay afloat as it is.

This point is arguing two different animals, terrestrial internet and cellular/wireless as one.

As far as wireless, many upstart competitors are locked out because they dont have billions to put up an infrastructure and to spend billions on engineering wireless solutions. This tidbit only highlights the ignorance of the writer and shows the lack of knowledge of the industry. Verizon and ATT actually do a very good job, considering the laws of physics. Additionally, the wireless industry is actually self regulating itself with competition. We dont need dozens of companies owning tidbids of spectrum and creating a poor experience for everyone. We need 2-3 carriers who resell their spectrum to other providers ... which they are doing now. If you want a $50 unlimited everything plan, then goto crappy Sprint. If you want quality connection, then go through Verizon or ATT. Its the way it should be.

Lets clarify the word monopoly. No ISP has a monopoly. There is a difference between no competition and the prevention of competition. DSL and Cable has had several decades head start on laying out their infrastructure and raking in trillions over the years via copper for telephone service and cable for TV services. Have we forgotten what we paid to have this infrastructure to roll out? Remember paying $100 for a handful of cable channels and paying hundreds for long distance calls?
Now we expect companies to roll on up in and spend billions of dollars to roll fiber out for $40.00 a month. Cable and DSL are using infrastructures, which by the way are old and outdated, that have long been paid for.

So exactly how will NN/Title II create competition? Deeming it so doesn't make it happen.

Another bullet point that seems forced. How will NN expand liberty and free expression???? The internet today is as free as one can get, outside of blatantly operating illegal activities. A valid point with a very inaccurate lead in.
NN will not bring about a fairness doctrine. However I do worry that years down the road, some form of the patriot act could come about. As I said before, I do not worry about the NSA sniffing my traffic. What I do worry about is Billy Bob at the HPD being able to look at my traffic. While I expect no privacy on the internet, my privacy should not be easily exposed to anyone with a badge.

I dont agree or disagree, however giving the government a controlling arm is not the "opposite" of a government takeover.

I dont think the government should provide internet services. That is a very vague comment. I do think the government should invest heavily in the basic infrastructure and force everyone to play ball. Unfortunately "everyone" is a vary large group of people who often have nothing to do with internet.

Personally I believe there should be 2 or 3 massive Tier 1 operators that are heavily vested by the federal government and regulated.

Tier 2 should be regulated by the states.

Tier 3 should be regulated by the county and cities.

 

To clarify, I am not worried about censorship. If we ever do come to that point, our country has other problems.

Right now, Congress has legislative powers. They can pass the laws, but they have no means to execute w/out going through lots of legal red tape. For example, piracy is a federal crime. However the government does not have a way to convict people unless a private party brings them to court.

However once Title II is enacted, who is to say the entertainment industry wont lobby congress to force ISP's to start playing traffic cop proactively instead of passively?

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/oLVAj-S1cvQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

So why isn't the entertainment industry lobbying for Title II?

 

I meant to reply to this about entertainment industry. Anyhow, yes that's a concern. How real is the concern? I haven't seen a good answer to that.

 

If the "nightmare scenario" is people who STEAL getting a $100 fine for STEALING, then that is hardly a concern of mine. STEALING music or videos is not free speech.

 

So you're ok with red light cameras and speeding cameras. Gotcha.

 

There is really no meaningful competition. DSL is crap compare to cable. They don't have the BW. They can't compete with cable at the higher speed. Even cable is crap compare to the technology that is already available.

Competition means two things - lower price and better service (including faster speed).

The technology exist for super speed. The competition doesn't exists to push the ISP to adopt the technology (yes, it's expensive and thus, they aren't going to do it until they really are *forced* to).

I can agree there is some competition (in some area) for the lower speed between DSL and cable. But that's basically it. Crap service at reasonable price for some when they do have the option to choose between a copper cable provide and a DSL provider.

For many, there isn't even that choice. And if you want high speed, there is definitely almost never more than 1 choice.

You mention trust me. Trust me on one this too. Due to lack of competition, not only are the US consumer paying more than what they should and getting less than, there is a burden on doing creative things to provide good services within the avg speed limit available today. And there are many services, great idea that simply is waiting on a shelve for speed to improve before it can really deploy. So, the consumers also are missing out on the opportunity for better service and newer services.

This lack of competition is holding the US back (and really the whole world in some sense).

 

I actually had no problem with red light cameras.

 

They need one at W. Alabama and Post Oak around rush hour.