Does Ted Cruz not understand Net Neutrality?

[likeitfast55]

Ted Cruz and his team have the facts wrong about net neutrality. Obama specifically said the government would NOT be in charge of pricing: "I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services."

Emphasis mine. Government will not rate regulate and saying so is lying (or maybe they didn't actually read the statement?).

[Forever_frost]

Ted Cruz and his team have the facts wrong about net neutrality. Obama specifically said the government would NOT be in charge of pricing: "I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services."

Emphasis mine. Government will not rate regulate and saying so is lying (or maybe they didn't actually read the statement?).

Or maybe those opposed understand what happens when the government regulates something.

I had Hugesnet and went over the bandwidth the first time I logged on. I did that twice before I blew the satellite to pieces and mailed it back to them in 2 small boxes.

[71chevellejohn]

I had Hugesnet and went over the bandwidth the first time I logged on. I did that twice before I blew the satellite to pieces and mailed it back to them in 2 small boxes.

Sounds like someone should have read the plan details before signing up.

[exlude]

Or maybe those opposed understand what happens when the government regulates something.

I had Hugesnet and went over the bandwidth the first time I logged on. I did that twice before I blew the satellite to pieces and mailed it back to them in 2 small boxes.

So now we have monopolies for a lot of the country where consumers have one choice in broadband provider. These monopolies prevent start ups or local municipalities from entering the market through legislative influence and/or court pressure - stifling competition. Let's also not forgot these monopolies continuously rank low to lowest in customer satisfaction. Their service ranks higher in cost to the consumer and lower in performance than many other 1st world countries.

The content providers already pay "internet backbone" companies to deliver their content and for the most part the companies do this. The "last mile" providers, however, throttle major content providers until the content provider offers huge sums for access to their consumers.

Meanwhile, consumers pay the "last mile" providers for a service and won't get it unless a third party pays the "last mile" provider even more money. How is it a legal business practice for a company to accept your money and only give you the product on their terms, despite any agreements? You see a similar problem on the other end with throttling of the consumer.

Not to mention the huge amounts of tax dollars these "last mile" providers have taken and then failed to meet their end of the agreement.

The land area and network congestion arguments have already been debunked, this is all a play to continue providing for the stock holders because somehow that's more important than the customer.

This is something Obama has right. The worst part of it all, is he had to speak on it, thus politicizing the issue which is guaranteed to have many right-sided, anti-obama-everything people jump up in arms against him while fully misunderstanding what is going on.

[racrguy]

So now we have monopolies for a lot of the country where consumers have one choice in broadband provider. These monopolies prevent start ups or local municipalities from entering the market through legislative influence and/or court pressure - stifling competition. Let's also not forgot these monopolies continuously rank low to lowest in customer satisfaction. Their service ranks higher in cost to the consumer and lower in performance than many other 1st world countries.

The content providers already pay "internet backbone" companies to deliver their content and for the most part the companies do this. The "last mile" providers, however, throttle major content providers until the content provider offers huge sums for access to their consumers.

Meanwhile, consumers pay the "last mile" providers for a service and won't get it unless a third party pays the "last mile" provider even more money. How is it a legal business practice for a company to accept your money and only give you the product on their terms, despite any agreements? You see a similar problem on the other end with throttling of the consumer.

Not to mention the huge amounts of tax dollars these "last mile" providers have taken and then failed to meet their end of the agreement.

The land area and network congestion arguments have already been debunked, this is all a play to continue providing for the stock holders because somehow that's more important than the customer.

This is something Obama has right. The worst part of it all, is he had to speak on it, thus politicizing the issue which is guaranteed to have many right-sided, anti-obama-everything people jump up in arms against him while fully misunderstanding what is going on.

Wait, you mean that people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about suddenly have a voice on the issue?

[Forever_frost]

So now we have monopolies for a lot of the country where consumers have one choice in broadband provider. These monopolies prevent start ups or local municipalities from entering the market through legislative influence and/or court pressure - stifling competition. Let's also not forgot these monopolies continuously rank low to lowest in customer satisfaction. Their service ranks higher in cost to the consumer and lower in performance than many other 1st world countries.

The content providers already pay "internet backbone" companies to deliver their content and for the most part the companies do this. The "last mile" providers, however, throttle major content providers until the content provider offers huge sums for access to their consumers.

Meanwhile, consumers pay the "last mile" providers for a service and won't get it unless a third party pays the "last mile" provider even more money. How is it a legal business practice for a company to accept your money and only give you the product on their terms, despite any agreements? You see a similar problem on the other end with throttling of the consumer.

Not to mention the huge amounts of tax dollars these "last mile" providers have taken and then failed to meet their end of the agreement.

The land area and network congestion arguments have already been debunked, this is all a play to continue providing for the stock holders because somehow that's more important than the customer.

This is something Obama has right. The worst part of it all, is he had to speak on it, thus politicizing the issue which is guaranteed to have many right-sided, anti-obama-everything people jump up in arms against him while fully misunderstanding what is going on.

So you want one monopoly to prevent another? How does that work?

[YALE]

So you want one monopoly to prevent another? How does that work?

Where is he suggesting a monopoly?

[exlude]

So you want one monopoly to prevent another? How does that work?

I'm not sure where you are getting that...?

The worst part about this recent anti-legislation outcry is it only comes now because Obama said something. Where was all the anti-legislation when these companies were, through legislation, crafting a market place that suited them?

[Forever_frost]

Where is he suggesting a monopoly?

The federal government is the ultimate monopoly. They can force anyone they like to do their bidding with the threat of force or confiscation so what is being asked is that basically since you don't like the internet being run by a company that does as they like with the product they are paying to bring to market, that the mob should get involved, put a gun to their head and tell them how the things are going to be done.

How did this theory work in Venezuela?

[CexMashean]

Has Frost offered a solution yet, or just his normal constitution quoting and praising?

[YALE]

The federal government is the ultimate monopoly. They can force anyone they like to do their bidding with the threat of force or confiscation so what is being asked is that basically since you don't like the internet being run by a company that does as they like with the product they are paying to bring to market, that the mob should get involved, put a gun to their head and tell them how the things are going to be done.

How did this theory work in Venezuela?

That is a non-answer. Literally no one is attempting, or even suggesting that the US government nationalize the internet. You don't seem to understand the nature of the issue at hand. What exactly is it you don't understand?

[exlude]

The federal government is the ultimate monopoly. They can force anyone they like to do their bidding with the threat of force or confiscation so what is being asked is that basically since you don't like the internet being run by a company that does as they like with the product they are paying to bring to market, that the mob should get involved, put a gun to their head and tell them how the things are going to be done.

How did this theory work in Venezuela?

This echoes of the Ted Cruzisms that any regulation is total control, it's not.

And the company did not bring access to the internet to the market with only their own money, they've used significant federal, state, and municipal dollars. They've since bought out competitive options, bought legislature to protect them, and bullied competition with the courts.

[talisman]

The federal government is the ultimate monopoly. They can force anyone they like to do their bidding with the threat of force or confiscation so what is being asked is that basically since you don't like the internet being run by a company that does as they like with the product they are paying to bring to market, that the mob should get involved, put a gun to their head and tell them how the things are going to be done.

How did this theory work in Venezuela?

Are you drunk?

[racrguy]

Are you drunk?

He is missing a not insignificant amount of grey matter.

[Forever_frost]

That is a non-answer. Literally no one is attempting, or even suggesting that the US government nationalize the internet. You don't seem to understand the nature of the issue at hand. What exactly is it you don't understand?

This is how I am looking at it, since it seems so foreign to some. Social security was meant to be voluntary and only 1% max of your income, until they decided to change it. When you grant the federal government the ability to regulate something, outside of the constitutional mandate, you grant them authority to do as they wish with it. Today may be telling ISP's that they must do this or that whereas tomorrow they decide that any site criticizing the government should be blocked.

If you want open and honest internet, you keep government out of it. Government doesn't fix things, they make it more expensive and more complicated.