Ted Cruz goes full retard: Net Neutrality is Obamacare for Internet

[piasabird]

The government did not really create the Internet. Arpanet was a government idea, but no one in the 1950's was smart enough to make it. It was eggheads from universities that made it happen. Where do you think the free and open exchange of ideas came from? Not the Government, and not private business like IBM or the Phone company???

Interesting books:
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-...f+the+internet

http://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Emp...ant+get+a+date

I have a copy of these books at home.

Funny think is I only paid like $5.00 each for these.

 

[zinfamous]

The government did not really create the Internet. Arpanet was a government idea, but no one in the 1950's was smart enough to make it. It was eggheads from universities that made it happen. Where do you think the free and open exchange of ideas came from? Not the Government, and not private business like IBM or the Phone company???

Interesting books:
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-...f+the+internet

http://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Emp...ant+get+a+date

I have a copy of these books at home.

Funny think is I only paid like $5.00 each for these.

....you mean eggheads at Universities with DoD funding, working on DoD projects, right?

Next thing you will tell me is that it was eggheads at Universities that created the hydrogen bomb, not the government!

 

[brycejones]

....you mean eggheads at Universities with DoD funding, working on DoD projects, right?

Next thing you will tell me is that it was eggheads at Universities that created the hydrogen bomb, not the government!

Holy shit you mean the government like paid smart people to do things? That's freaking Communism right there. Just another example of the government support elitist know-it-alls who because of years of training and experience in specialized fields who think they know better than common sense Americans.

The government could have saved billions on research and just asked bubba to make something with a really big boom. Computer networking could have been as simple as telling bubba to make the dohickies talk to each other.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
In fact what we have in the US today is and has been up to this point a scenario of net-neutrality for the most part but with ZERO competition.

You've said "zero competition" several times.

Look, I realize I don't know a lot about this stuff, but can you please explain how it appears that I have a number providers in my small town?

See here: http://broadbandnow.com/North-Carolina/Hendersonville?zip=28792

TIA

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
We need MORE government in this, not less. The evidence from around the world is clear.

We need BETTER govt in this, not more.

Fern

 

[Zargon]

Except Comcast/Netflix thing isn't even a net neutrality issue. Have to hand it to Netflix, though, they've done an excellent job of spinning a complicated and difficult to understand issue to the less informed public to make themselves look like the victim and Comcast look like the bad guy. When in reality it just boils down to Netflix trying to take advantage of peering arrangements (where conventionally both parties send/receive relatively equal amounts of data, nobody charges anybody and everyone benefits and is happy; one party doesn't dump a ton more traffic on the other and then expect to not have to pay for the interconnect).

http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/

yes. its not necessarily a net neutrality issue, however, the two ISP's that have issues with Netflix traffic also happen to be the ones that also sell similar content streaming.

Neither Comcast, nor Netflix, is putting out whole truth, clearly.

as a comsumer, on Comcast, if I used Netflix. I would bitch at Comcast, and if I actually had a second choice of internet provider, that wasn't Verizon, would then switch(our FTTH is like 3 blocks away) to the provider that was happy to let neflix have a firehose, to better serve their customers.

I personally believe the underlying issue is more related to Comcast wanting to sell streaming and thus not wanting to make Netflix work well

but I could be wrong.

of course, I could be right.

no one will ever really know though

 

[Fern]

I always find it odd that conservatives simultaneously fetishize the constitution AND argue that the US government is uniquely incompetent compared to other governments. If that's the case, it sounds like the constitution sucks because it has made a government that sucks.

Odd to love a document so much that has led to a government you hate so much.

It's not the Constitution that makes the govt suck, it's the politicians that make the govt suck.

The Constitution has worked at times to prevent them (politicians) from making it suck harder.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Have you ever heard of the REA (Rural Electrification Administration)? It seems that our incompetent government thought of flyover country because big business wasn't interested in them.

From Wikipedia:

Our government is who cared when nobody else did. Big electric didn't want anything to do with rural customers and ripped them off in the few places they did serve them.

Keep trusting big business to solve your problems, I'm sure they will once they can profit handsomely from it.

I don't believe that big business was "ripping them off".

The simple fact is that running a power line 10 miles etc for a single family is expensive. Lot of labor, line of line, lot of poles and a lot of maintenance (cutting back tree limbs, repairs after storms bring down lines etc).

Business worked as it should. And this is where the opportunity exists for govt to step in and make intelligent infrastructure investment. It's not worth it for a private business. But increasing efficiencies in rural areas, whether that be farms or what have you, benefits food product consumers (all of us other than corps who don't eat) and increases the revenue base that provides taxes for the govt (not power companies).

Yes, I have heard of that. But how is internet even remotely on the same level as electricity?

Same as above. Much of it is brought in by cable. Burying/installing cable is damn expensive. I have clients who are now millionaires from their cable installation companies. The more fiber you've got to lay, to a smaller group of users, the higher the costs. It's long been known that it's that 'last mile' that's the killer.

However, the big difference is that internet can had via satellite, unlike electricity.

Fern

 

[Engineer]

However, the big difference is that internet can had via satellite, unlike electricity.

Fern

and satellites are cheap and carry enough bandwidth for many people?

:hmm:

and from what I've seen of satellite internet, it sucks....badly.

 

[Fern]

and satellites are cheap and carry enough bandwidth for many people?

:hmm:

and from what I've seen of satellite internet, it sucks....badly.

IDK, I've never used satellite.

But out in rural areas it is an option. I live in the mountains. Some places are very difficult to get to. Even if there's already electrical lines run to a place, they can be damned difficult to access.

And because it's mountainous we can't use wireless tech that requires 'line of sight'.

Regardless satellite is an option for internet. Elect power not at all. That was all I was saying.

Fern

 

[TheSlamma]

Glad we have people in control of things they simply don't understand anything about.

Don't these guys at least hire GenX or Millennial interns to help them out with their fear of voodoo computers?

 

[DrDoug]

IDK, I've never used satellite.

But out in rural areas it is an option. I live in the mountains. Some places are very difficult to get to. Even if there's already electrical lines run to a place, they can be damned difficult to access.

And because it's mountainous we can't use wireless tech that requires 'line of sight'.

Regardless satellite is an option for internet. Elect power not at all. That was all I was saying.

Fern

Some of my relatives who live in rural areas of Montana, Idaho and Washington have no choice but to use satellite and they universally agree that it sucks balls (performance-wise). Their kids can forget about any multiplayer gaming that requires low latency and they get drops constantly. The cost is outrageous too.

I live in a rural area that has cable and DSL as our only options. Up until last April we had basic cable, phone and 20/2 internet service, all for the low low price of $178.00 a month. The service sucked ass and I rarely got anywhere near 20 down, usually 8-10 was the norm. That and we were getting dropped signals all of the time. I finally dropped residential service and switched to business cable with only phone service and 80/5 internet service (w/ static IP), all for the low price of $166.00 a month. Now we regularly max out and even exceed our rated DL speed without issue, allowing great streaming and downloads/updates for gaming and such. Since April our service has dropped off three times and recovered immediately.

When my rural relatives who have no options except for satellite, wireless or DSL drop by for a visit they drool with envy. I want that for them too but big business isn't interested in them. This is where something like the REA could really help.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
When my rural relatives who have no options except for satellite, wireless or DSL drop by for a visit they drool with envy. I want that for them too but big business isn't interested in them. This is where something like the REA could really help.

I thought we had a program to bring broad band to rural areas? Or, maybe it was a program just discussed/proposed that never got anywhere.

IMO, rural broadband is the type of infrastructure program ideally suited for the fed govt. But I suppose they're too busy getting into all sorts of other things (they have no business in) and generally acting like my sig suggests.

Fern

 

[zanejohnson]

i live about an hour out of the big city (DFW metroplex), and luckily i live in a semi-urban area, and have access to a cable company (20mbps) or ADSL (20mbps),

this is a DUOPOLY. both providers are capable of offering much faster access, but they dont, because they don't have to, they've agreed to work together and both offer the same speed as their fastest package......THIS, is what we want to stop.

satellite is inherently subpar because of the physical configuration that satellite internet access uses (latency between the actual satellite and your receiver.


what the libs WANT to happen, is that the cable co, and telco, are forced to allow 3rd party companies to lease the access to the infrastructure (the cable network, or the telephone network), who can then, begin to compete (offer a higher speed connection over the same lines that these companies are currently operating a duopoly over)



this is probably really hard to someone who isn't tech savvy to understand..




everything would get cheaper over those lines if competition was allowed to take place, cheaper, faster, internet access, cheaper TV, with more channels available (because then IPTV could really take off!)

 

[Engineer]

I thought we had a program to bring broad band to rural areas? Or, maybe it was a program just discussed/proposed that never got anywhere.

I think we did. Many companies took money and didn't fulfill the promise, IIRC. I seem to call Frontier in West Virginia took hundreds of millions of dollars and didn't do much of anything to roll out new network infrastructure.

 

[zanejohnson]

now that covers the common carrier issue, not the net neutrality issue, because that's what this thread is really supposed to be about....

right now, ISP's hate the existence of NETFLIX, the only reason they even allow it, is because NETFLIX pays THEM a premium, to use huge amounts of bandwidth, and not be throttled....ISP's would love to just throttle NETFLIX and make it unwatchable, and they would, if NETFLIX didn't pay said premium.

with net neutrality, they are NOT ALLOWED to throttle netflix, or any other site...

see, without net neutrality, if NETFLIX stopped paying said premium (and the people threatened to discontinue service if NETFLIX was throttled)

guess what they'd do......they'd throttle everything else!!! like ATOT!!

only problem is...... people can't threaten to change service providers..because there is a MONOPOLY ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE, AND ONLY 1 PROVIDER (OR 2, IF IT'S DUOPOLY, MOST TOWNS ARE), and there is no other choice...


i'm trying to explain this so people who are less tech savvy can understand it....

it's really a no brainer if you understand it... Ted Cruz, is literally banking on you not understanding this, and spinning it to his conservative audience like this is somehow going to hurt conservatives, and it's some liberal wet dream or something....it's really not.

 

[zanejohnson]

oh and here's that trump card about whether or not internet is an essential utility........

yes it is..... because you have to have internet access to sign up for Obamacare

(lol i know)

 

[DrDoug]

I thought we had a program to bring broad band to rural areas? Or, maybe it was a program just discussed/proposed that never got anywhere.

IMO, rural broadband is the type of infrastructure program ideally suited for the fed govt. But I suppose they're too busy getting into all sorts of other things (they have no business in) and generally acting like my sig suggests.

Fern

They do, but as with everything government assists people with now it is poorly written, horribly underfunded and slow in developing. That and it's structured so that significant costs are shifted to those who are trying to start/get the service. A lot of the rural internet access built so far is wireless, crappy, capped and expensive. That and the broadband initiative was put together with the assistance of guess who? Lobbyists of broadband companies.

Government is crippled and has been for some time now.

i live about an hour out of the big city (DFW metroplex), and luckily i live in a semi-urban area, and have access to a cable company (20mbps) or ADSL (20mbps),

this is a DUOPOLY. both providers are capable of offering much faster access, but they dont, because they don't have to, they've agreed to work together and both offer the same speed as their fastest package......THIS, is what we want to stop.

satellite is inherently subpar because of the physical configuration that satellite internet access uses (latency between the actual satellite and your receiver.

what the libs WANT to happen, is that the cable co, and telco, are forced to allow 3rd party companies to lease the access to the infrastructure (the cable network, or the telephone network), who can then, begin to compete (offer a higher speed connection over the same lines that these companies are currently operating a duopoly over)

this is probably really hard to someone who isn't tech savvy to understand..

everything would get cheaper over those lines if competition was allowed to take place, cheaper, faster, internet access, cheaper TV, with more channels available (because then IPTV could really take off!)

The competition some are talking about would require multiple lines to every residence for consumers to take advantage of competition. Let's say there are seven cable internet providers in an area, do they all have to run their own lines into each residence? If so, then how in the hell do they even get started in competition. That and what homeowner wants all of that cable routed through their property and a stack of boxes on the side of their house?

That's just nuts.

 

[doubledeluxe]

I have 6 mbps here at home with the option for 50 mbps. In South America. So for those in the states who can't even get 50Mbps at home consider that developing nations have it better. As far as I'm concerned even they're behind since my apt in Europe had Gigabit up and down. They connected the whole apt complex so that it only cost each tenant a fraction of the single payer cost. I can't remember but it was dirt cheap. It's tough to go from that to 6mbps but at the moment I don't really need more at this location. I'm not streaming content or doing any heavy usage.

 

[zanejohnson]

They do, but as with everything government assists people with now it is poorly written, horribly underfunded and slow in developing. That and it's structured so that significant costs are shifted to those who are trying to start/get the service. A lot of the rural internet access built so far is wireless, crappy, capped and expensive. That and the broadband initiative was put together with the assistance of guess who? Lobbyists of broadband companies.

Government is crippled and has been for some time now.



The competition some are talking about would require multiple lines to every residence for consumers to take advantage of competition. Let's say there are seven cable internet providers in an area, do they all have to run their own lines into each residence? If so, then how in the hell do they even get started in competition. That and what homeowner wants all of that cable routed through their property and a stack of boxes on the side of their house?

That's just nuts.

no, you missed it...... COMMON CARRIER. ONE CABLE NETWORK, MULTIPLE COMPANIES OFFERERING SERVICE OVER THIS ONE CABLE NETWORK.

JUST LIKE THE ELECTRIC COMPANIES DO.


company A leases IP's over 172.1.x.x
company B leases IP's over 172.2.x.x

 

[doubledeluxe]

That's what works.

 

[zanejohnson]

I have 6 mbps here at home with the option for 50 mbps. In South America. So for those in the states who can't even get 50Mbps at home consider that developing nations have it better. As far as I'm concerned even they're behind since my apt in Europe had Gigabit up and down. They connected the whole apt complex so that it only cost each tenant a fraction of the single payer cost. I can't remember but it was dirt cheap. It's tough to go from that to 6mbps but at the moment I don't really need more at this location. I'm not streaming content or doing any heavy usage.

this right here. people dont understand that America is FAR FAR behind other 1st world countries, and even behind developing nations........ because......badum badum. monopoly on the infrastructure.


we're far behind in a lot of things.

 

[DrDoug]

no, you missed it...... COMMON CARRIER. ONE CABLE NETWORK, MULTIPLE COMPANIES OFFERERING SERVICE OVER THIS ONE CABLE NETWORK.

JUST LIKE THE ELECTRIC COMPANIES DO.


company A leases IP's over 172.1.x.x
company B leases IP's over 172.2.x.x

Ummm, I'm agreeing with you and stating that multiple lines to each residence is fucking stupid?

:biggrin:

 

[zanejohnson]

and imagine, if once, these 3rd party companies could offer an alternative internet service over the common carrier infrastructure......... and then, they offer a little box that sits on top of your tv, that connects via ethernet (or wifi) to your router......and carries, TV channels..... IPTV which would be in direct competition with the company that used to lay claim to the infrastructure (the cable network), who also offers their set top box for television channels.....premium TV would get cheaper.

 

[zanejohnson]

Ummm, I'm agreeing with you and stating that multiple lines to each residence is fucking stupid?

:biggrin:

whoops my bad (and to reiterate your point, yes, 7 different cable networks would be completely fucking stupid)