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

what faith do you refer to?

 

I consider myself to lean Libertarian, and I work for a corporation. I hate corporations. They're a perverted form of the same blameless, bureaucratic, monolithic beast.

It's important for "Libertarians" to remember that Libertarianism acknowledges the necessity of a government, if not the status quo.

I'll be honest, I had to read and re-read articles today to understand what the "sides" are to this issue.

My instinct tells me that I trust neither corporations nor the government to indefinitely safeguard the availability of online information.. but if forced to choose, I agree with the President.

If the government takes away Clutchfans from the people - welcome to the revolution.

Post #5 was all it took? That escalated quickly.

Based on my polling of some co-workers on this issue today, the average person definitely doesn't understand the full scale of the issue, or the viable options. I'll admit that I don't.

 

Curiously, deregulation in the U.S. has had the effect of the net behaving and performing more and more like China's.

 

The "invisible hand".

 

We are speaking about internet customers. Not their advertise reach or Android systems.

Google has done a fantastic job of making "fiber" a buzz word. There is this misconception that Google is the new leader in fiber rollout. While ATT and Verizon are no longer aggressively rolling out fiber, there are dozens of companies out there that offer $100 1Gbps connections. Unfortunately they are regional and you will never hear their names.

This is my opinion on the AT&T rollout in Austin; They are not afraid of Google taking over. What they dont like is Google putting them in the hot seat. It can take tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to roll out in a neighborhood. Google requires a certain take rate (crowd fiber initiatives) before they are willing to move into an area. ATT is trying to make it cost prohibitive for Google to be successful by getting a big enough foothold to keep them out of areas. This isn't cable internet where the technician comes out and drags a cable over from the nearest pole. Its a home run to a central location, which could be a few hundred feet away or could be a couple miles away.

Net Neutrality (like most liberal pipe dreams) are great on paper. I support net neutrality to a degree. I do believe that a company should pay for what they use. If your product saturates the internet, then that company should pay more (Ie: netflix).
What I dont like are the hidden pitfalls in regulation. I love the internet in that it is the wild wild west. Regulation will eventually kill it. No longer will it be like an untamed river picking its path across the land, it will be dammed and controlled. Do you appreciate your unobstructed VPN that gives you complete anonymity on the internet? That might not be the case if you're forced to go through a government server first. This is what "conservatives" are concerned about.

 

that's economics not faith.

You shouldn't have any faith in government or corporations, but only one of these has the ability to force you to do something.

 

I don't know who you're referring to, but I never said Title II isn't a regulation. Of course it is.

This is what you said:

This is incorrect. Net neutrality is the elimination of preferential treatment of data. Preventing discrimination on data can affect bandwidth, depending on what a given ISP is doing in order to discriminate. But title II doesn't regulate speed, it regulates discrimination, which can have an effect on speed. Read up on title II before you make erroneous assertions as you did above.

 

No its not.

by preferential treatment do you mean giving some individuals more speed than others? Do you know what regulating internet speed means? It means stopping exactly what you just mentioned.

 

Come on this only applies if the only thing you ever do on the internet is surf the web. Every need to download anything? Upload anything? Suddenly that 30mbps feels like crap.

 

And the other could exponentially raise your opportunity cost for alternative choices to the point where you really only have one viable/sustainable choice.

 

If the only way for ISPs to discriminate was via throttling, that argument might make sense. But they could also block access entirely to certain sites and services. They could count Netflix usage against a monthly GB cap, but not their own service, like AT&T did. Caps are not the same as speed. MB does not equal MBs per second. Nor is totally blocked access the same as speed.

I imagine you throw out "regulation of speed" as some way to conjure images of big bad gubmint setting minimums and maximums on bandwidth. This is not the case. Title II is actually a lot more elegant than that. Under title II ISPs can still use any variation of up/down bandwidth in their offerings; they just can't throttle, block, or otherwise prefer certain data over others. This, of course, only increases competition among web services, and forces ISPs to compete on price, bandwidth, and reliability, rather than how far they can limit a customer and get away with it. But in the republican world this equates to a "government takeover."

 

I don't know enough about net neutrality to make a comment, so I decided to come in and make a subtle jab at the opposing party, like mc mark. Thanks a lot BHO.

 

Obama uses the language of a terrorist.

 

Uploading is a different animal altogether. I am not sure why there are limitations with uploading. I do know DSL has physical limitations on pushing data.

How often do you peak your connection? Not very many people have this issue. About the only time I hit 30M is when im watching an HD movie and torrenting at the same time

 

English?

 

Without Net Neutrality, you probably could kiss Clutchfans goodbye.

Or at the very best, this site would be in the slowest of slow lanes.

 

Minor expansion.

Anyone living anywhere in the U.S. who thinks their 1 or 2 ISP provider has the consumer best interests as a priority is high.

 

Ted cruz b right.

When you mix government and internet, only bad thing can happen. Like invention of Internet. Bad thing.

 

haha nah.. CF is too static & not profitable.

 

In all fairness to Cruz, he's doing exactly what he promised... Although to the objective or those on the "political fence" he comes across as an obstructionist. The voters in Texas wanted someone to oppose BHO in every way imaginable, and they are certainly getting it. It's a bit of "cutting of your nose to spite your face", but to each his own.