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

Trying to enforce the law is big gubmit!

It's weird to me. People won't advocate that running a red light isn't wrong, but the majority of people think they are the victims of police oppression if they ever get caught doing it and get a ticket.

 

Ted Cruz: Regulating the Internet threatens entrepreneurial freedom

 

Surprise, surprise, Ted Cruz was the fourth highest paid Senator by telecommunications companies this election cycle in terms of direct contributions. No telling how much his PACs took in.

He wasn't even up for election lol.

 

Really? Do you not know the shenanigans behind the red light cameras? The yellow lights have been set to the legal min of 3 seconds, when often they were four and five seconds. Often motorists are not given a chance to stop.
And in the event your car gets caught, you do not have a chance to contest it. Its either pay for the (private) ticket or off to collections you go.

It has nothing to do with police oppression and everything to do with abusing power. Using safety as an excuse to generate revenue is terrible.

 

I drove around this city a lot for work and never received a single ticket.

 

His stance on this is just so blatantly, cravenly dishonest it's unbelievable, except that it's sadly not.

It was mentioned before, but I'd love for someone to dig up some quotes of his on electric deregulation in TX.

 

Yeah, Cruz sounds he doesn't even know what he's talking about. The guy is often just plain illogical in what he says, and this is one of those times.

Of course the follow the money trail helps explain a lot. Good find.

 

This might be the worst video ever made. Ever. Is he in his bathroom?

 

you don't claim whats wrong with the video just like you don't claim whats wrong with Ted Cruz's view on net neutrality (this is not to say either are wrong or correct). You are not conducive to good discussion.

 

I'm not sure the money trail is the key thing here - I wouldn't be surprised if the Telecoms donate to him because he's opposed to Net Neutrality as opposed to the other way around.

The simpler answer, I think, is that Ted Cruz opposes anything that Democrats support. So if Obama is for it, he's against it - regardless of merit or logic or anything else.

 

You didn't post the video so I am assuming you didn't watch it? Ted Cruz wasn't in it, it was some guy in his bathroom from 2010 saying tens years ago we all had 28.8k modems and that net neutrality would give us all the same bandwidth no matter how much we pay. Electricity is a utility and at work I have three phase 480V. It would be easier to discuss what he had right in the video.

 

Ted Cruz is super smart. Of course he probably knows what is going on. He just wants power and he knows the way to do it is pandering to the anti-Obama crowd.

 

I watched it. I just read Buck's post (two above yours) as being from you (thus the Cruz comment). Apologies.

 

It's the only thing he brings to the table. And sadly, it's probably all he'll need to get what he wants.

 

Net neutrality is not net neutrality and not net neutrality is net neutrality. Awesome.

 

I rarely have the guts to show my face in D&D because I am by my own admission fairly naive and tend to oversimplify things, and I don't spend a vast amount of time immersed in politics. That said, I just wanted to say this thread was a nice read and I appreciate the time some people here put into explaining the issues from both sides.

Net neutrality has always been an interesting issue to me and one that I keep my eye on because I don't think there's really any right answer. The idealistic libertarian in me opposes any regulation that is going to dictate what products a company offers. The engineer in me feels that allowing ISPs to treat data preferentially shakes out as disasterous from a cost/benefit analysis perspective, essentially ruining a spectacular technology that is the centerpiece of the greatest tech advancement period of all time, for the sake of padding the profit margins of already profitable ISPs. Maybe preventing a disaster like that would be something even I could support regulation for...haven't quite figured it out myself but I lean towards the net neutrality side.

I do believe in fairly extensive deregulation in many cases, but that belief is based on the ability of any given entrepreneur to recognize when a megacorporation is performing inadequately and offer a competitive (local or national) alternative. With the massive infrastructure challenge of internet service, that ability to compete isn't there so most of my idealism is kind of useless.

I think that lack of free market competition is the real problem, but that's even tougher to solve without the government overstepping its boundaries than net neutrality itself.

No easy answer if you ask me. But I guess one thing that's pretty clear is that Ted Cruz is either a liar or a fool if that's what he thinks the net neutrality debate is about. He lost my vote (though it's doubtful he ever had it or that as a libertarian-conservative living in Ohio my vote matters to him in any way).

 

Very well said. I wish more people would take a more broad approach to issues instead of blindly flocking to their team. Both sides have legit positions but both miss the bigger picture. NN will not remotely solve competition.

 

Best thing I've read on the issue.

http://www.progressivepolicy.org/is...open-internet-letter-pro-growth-progressives/

Regulating the Open Internet: A Letter to Pro-growth Progressives

11/10/2014 Blog By The Progressive Policy Institute
To Whom It May Concern:

As Democrats who care about the dual priorities of protecting broadband consumers and stimulating broadband investment, we are gravely concerned about President Obama’s endorsement today of monopoly-era, common carrier regulations (called “Title II”) for broadband providers. The president’s proposal does not balance these goals, nor move us towards compromise on other, arguably more critical, communications issues.

First, Title II is not necessary to protect consumers from the hypothetical threat of discrimination by broadband providers against edge providers. In Verizon v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit made clear that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could regulate pay-for-priority deals—and even reverse them after the fact—under Section 706 of the 1996 Act.

Second, Title II itself isn’t guaranteed to stop pay-for-priority by broadband service providers. Title II would merely require that the terms of any pay-for-priority deal be extended to all comers. The monopoly-era cases of generations ago in which the FCC used Title II to proscribe “inherently unjust” conduct have nothing to do with a competitive broadband provider offering paid priority. Thus, the prospect that Title II could be used to bar pay-for-priority deals is very small.

Third, the more likely rationale for imposing Title II is to pursue an aggressive regulatory agenda unrelated to net neutrality, in particular, “unbundling,” the policy that requires companies that make investments in broadband infrastructure to share them with competitors at government-set prices. But when this policy was ended in the decade following the bi-partisan 1996 Act, an explosion of investment by telcos and cable companies in broadband infrastructure resulted, which allowed the U.S. to catch up to the rest of the world. Both the Clinton and Bush Administrations supported this consensus. Moving backwards to a forced-sharing regime would likely chill broadband investment, along with its job-creation and impact on growth, and preserve the “digital divide.”

Fourth, the net neutrality saga has diverted the FCC’s resources for nearly a decade. By eschewing real compromise made possible by the D.C. Circuit Court, and instead pursuing a radical prescription of Title II, the FCC guarantees itself a drawn-out litigation battle with broadband providers. Other, more critical policies, such as broadband deployment in underserved areas and freeing up spectrum for wireless, will sit on the back burner.

Broadband providers have made clear they would not challenge net neutrality rules based on the FCC’s Section 706 authority, so long as the rules made some effort to accommodate arrangements with edge providers that led to new and improved services. That compromise would be consistent with the desire expressed by the American electorate to find the middle ground and reject extreme intervention in the U.S. economy.

Sincerely,

Ev Ehrlich, PPI Senior Fellow

Michael Mandel, PPI Chief Economic Strategist

Hal Singer, PPI Senior Fellow TV

 

Your objection to each point below seems to be pretty minor compared to the statement above that it is "nonsense." Regardless, you're right, making statements that Title II forces competition isn't true. I think it can help competition, which I'll explain in a second.

If you read the previous page, you'd see I made a post explaining that there are two different issues being discussed, one being net neutrality which the president believes should be achieved through Title II. The other issue is multiple service providers competing on the same infrastructure, which as you've explained is happening with colocation in wireless but not terrestrial. (Feel free to point out mistakes, you understand infrastructure better than I do.)

We both agree that there isn't enough competition, so I guess what you're trying to point out is that competition actually exists, that there are competitors greater than 1. But truly, duopolies, or "competition" where one company can always provide more bandwidth plus cable TV via monopoly, just isn't true competition. DSL prices just dropped because they can't squeeze as many bits through a phone cable as you can through coax. Similarly, we see arguments about "competition" for home internet via wireless, but the speed per buck just isn't close. That's not real competition, it's "competition" in quotes. But you know that.

I'd like to know more about the terms where the big 3 resell their bandwidth. There are some very very small competitors reselling service at much better prices, but it seems they are quite small and not successful. Or am I mistaken?

Yeah, let's clarify. Depending on what service, and what area, there are absolutely ISPs that have a monopoly, and I know you know this, because you already pointed out above that certain companies have zero competition in rural areas. But I imagine you're talking about something else in the above quote.

But we're getting distracted with the wrong definition of monopoly. It seems you're discussing monopoly as absolute, complete, 100% control of a product or service. In fact, the legal definition in the USA is quite different. It is a percentage lower than 100%. As you already noted, there's a difference between having a monopoly and abusing a monopoly. Monopolies are legal in the USA; abusing them to squash competition and gouge customers is illegal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling you want to defend ISPs from the accusation of being monopolies by saying they don't have 100% control of service in all areas. Of course the definition of monopoly, legally and otherwise, is broader than that.

You seem on one hand to detail how the entrenched phone and cable companies have been making "trillions" over the years for infrastructure that is already paid for, then feel sorry for them that they are expected to spend "billions" to roll out fiber. Do you feel both disgust and pity, or for you is it more one than the other?

It doesn't guarantee it. But this is how I think it assists:
The ISPs are parts of very large media conglomerates. It is in their favor to control both content and delivery. Without NN, the idea of competing is all about lock-in, and far less concerned with service, speed, or price. It is absolutely in the favor of a media/provider conglomerate to restrict customers' access to competitors' media and services, and point them to the services and media that send more $$ their way.

With NN, the ISPs become dumb pipes, and they may no longer restrict access to services or media. With this in place, the only way they can compete is service, reliability, speed, and price. Without NN, competition means providing the best walled garden. With NN, competition means providing best service and price.

It doesn't fix the problem that there isn't enough competition. In fact, if we instituted mandates to share terrestrial infrastructure, I think title II would become unnecessary. Competition and market forces would take care of the problem. But there's no way in hell republicans will allow that to happen, ironically.

Keep in mind we've had NN rules in place for some time, though the FCC's authority was challenged in court and defeated a year or two ago. It's not entirely accurate to assume that we have a free internet just cause that's what ISPs want. Furthermore, back in the early days of the internet when it was all dial-up, we had true market forces at work, tons of competitors available to every phone jack. We can't take it for granted that openness will continue when NN is entirely defeated or de-fanged, and competition remains stifled.

Ok, you have a very unique combination of trust/mistrust in the government. Almost anyone I can think of who would worry about government intrusion into private industry is also extremely concerned with the breadth of NSA snooping. I don't get it, personally, but if that's your thing it's cool.

 

I can't believe his opinion was just posted as some sort of valid take on the subject. Just look at who paid for his platform to write it.