Ted Cruz is wrong on net neutrality.

[Belmont31R]

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/01/fcc-tom-wheeler/


Net neutrality basically boils down to the ISP's not being able to treat packets differently based on their origin. What this means is that they cannot throttle or slow down a connection from X to Y while speeding up A to B.

The 'free market' doesn't apply to ISP's. The US is a big place, and it's financially impossible to run multiple cables to every house and business for every ISP who wants to compete in a given area. Thus the ISP's serve regional markets so most people only have one broadband option available to them. For instance, our area has TWC and zero other high speed broadband options. I'd support deregulation but deregulation with a monopoly isn't going to work.

Second, the ISP's used Title II access to lay their infrastructure which has provisions for treating them as a utility. Title II gave them access to easements, utility poles, existing access, ect Under the guise of installing hard phone lines they installed the infrastructure to bring cable and internet as well. Hard phone lines are Title II. A lot of people don't have a hard phone line anymore. What this means is they used utility infrastructure to install their systems they don't want regulated as a utility. Only phone calls are currently regulated under Title II. Internet and other data going over the same exact cables are not currently Title II. Title II has protections against degrading service so your phone call wouldn't be garbled and worthless because you called someone with a different phone provider. In return the phone companies were classified as a utility and were allowed to access utility infrastructure. What they did is use Title II to install all of their systems that support the internet, cell networks, cable TV, ect. Every cell tower is connected via hard lines.

So they want to be Title II when it suits them but not Title II when it doesn't, and used Title II rules to install all the infrastructure to run what they don't want classified as a utility.

Where this all gets worse is Netflix is now having to pay them for a reliable data rate. Doesn't matter if you pay your ISP for high speed connection. It's not going to be high speed unless the content providers you're already paying for pay your specific ISP as well. Netflix is a huge part of the internet, and is a test case to see if they can get away with this. If this is allowed to stand the floodgates are going to be opened up into throttling anyone who doesn't pay off every ISP for a faster connection. Doesn't matter that you're paying your ISP already.

Someone like Netflix has their own ISP. So say you pay for a 25MBPS home internet connection, and Netflix's ISP can connect your ISP at 5MBPS. Technically you, at your home should then get a 5MBPS connection to Netflix. Oh no. The ISP's created a 3rd speed by throttling where Netflix comes into their network. So that 25MBPS you're paying for is suddenly contingent on the website you're going to paying your ISP, too. Suddenly Netflix is down to 0.8MBPS and isn't in high def, lags, and you're frustrated.

Cruz is technically correct that Congress can act. But they haven't and haven't really shown any signs of acting. I think he is mistaken that deregulation is the answer. As I already pointed out the ISP's have regional monopolies where competition is mostly non existent. Deregulation under this scenario is hardly free market, and so is the use of Title II access as a utility to install their infrastructure for what they're now claiming are services not subject to Title II rules. Since competition is impossible, and their networks were installed under utility rules, the ISP's should be treated as utilities. I also consider advertising speeds false advertising as they are now intentionally throttling websites who aren't paying them off. This recently occurred after the FCC lost a court case. The judge said the FCC has the power to regulate them as a utility but because they haven't yet the prior rules the FCC put in place were invalid. The judge basically told the FCC how to regulate them legally, and the FCC is teeter tottering and waffling on doing do. In fact, Wheeler supports the 'fast lane' approach where, unless the Netflixes of the web pay off your ISP, their services and content will be throttled to the point you get degraded service.

[montanadave]

Today's politics is about sound bites and talking points. The devil is always in the details. Just another example of a politician spouting off a populist message while continuing to carry the corporate water.

[The_War_Wagon]

Gummint exists to screw up a free cup of coffee. If there's a way to BADLY bungle net neutrality, PLAN on the FCC picking THAT option, and it passing Congress unanimously. :suicide:

[Belmont31R]

Gummint exists to screw up a free cup of coffee. If there's a way to BADLY bungle net neutrality, PLAN on the FCC picking THAT option, and it passing Congress unanimously. :suicide:


Net neutrality has to happen because of the intentional lack of competition here. In fact, Comcast said they should be allowed to buy TWC because they don't compete in any markets. These are two of the biggest ISP's in the nation with a combined 50 million accounts.

Other places in the world with much smaller territories can have multiple broadband ISP's in one location and they have much cheaper and faster service. We don't have that luxury in the US. I know someone in Europe who pays just 15€ a month for 40/20mbps connection and has two other broadband options. Competition drives the price down, service up, and their ISP's are far less likely to play games like they're trying to do here.

[HES]

Google just needs to get their ass in gear and start laying fiber.

[alienb1212]

Google just needs to get their ass in gear and start laying fiber.

Yup. This.

That way we can have the illusion of neutrality while they sell the statistics of every packet.

[Belmont31R]

Yup. This.

That way we can have the illusion of neutrality while they sell the statistics of every packet.


Haven't heard that they're doing that. However, AT&T has 'Gigapower' now and they are scanning your traffic.

http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB421828&cv=812&_requestid=132264#fbid=bojhNcmJjOk

[TAZ]

Net neutrality has to happen because of the intentional lack of competition here. In fact, Comcast said they should be allowed to buy TWC because they don't compete in any markets. These are two of the biggest ISP's in the nation with a combined 50 million accounts.

Other places in the world with much smaller territories can have multiple broadband ISP's in one location and they have much cheaper and faster service. We don't have that luxury in the US. I know someone in Europe who pays just 15€ a month for 40/20mbps connection and has two other broadband options. Competition drives the price down, service up, and their ISP's are far less likely to play games like they're trying to do here.

To believe that a government managed net neutrality will be good for the people is pretty naive. While I agree with the concept that my ISP should live up to its contract of delivering content at our agreed upon rate, I don't think that a government sponsored act will do what we think it will.

I think the better question to answer is why is there an intentional lack of competition and how do we simply get rid of it.

[Belmont31R]

To believe that a government managed net neutrality will be good for the people is pretty naive. While I agree with the concept that my ISP should live up to its contract of delivering content at our agreed upon rate, I don't think that a government sponsored act will do what we think it will.

I think the better question to answer is why is there an intentional lack of competition and how do we simply get rid of it.


I already answered the why part. It's simply cost prohibitive to wire every house and business for multiple ISP's. Maybe in high density areas but there's a ton of the country where that just won't work.

Net neutrality isn't any more management by the gov than any other law. It's been around under Title II laws for hard phone lines for decades.

Even if we had 3 broadband providers to choose from the chances of one of them adhering to net neutrality principles is slim to none. Comcast is trying to buy TWC, and they have a combined 50 million accounts. If you figure 3 people per account that's half of the US.

[Javelin]

Whatever stimulates innovation, jobs & industry.


That is the mantra of the right...

[Magic_Salad0892]

I'm trying very hard to figure out where I stand on this issue.

[yellowfin]

Whatever stimulates innovation, jobs & industry.


That is the mantra of the right...While virtually no politician on either side accomplishes jack **** to repeal laws that curtail innovation, jobs, and industry. The major thing holding us back from being the industrial superpower we were in the 40's and 50's is government strangulation. The talk show people and politicians talk about it but it gets worse instead of better. WTF?

[TAZ]

I already answered the why part. It's simply cost prohibitive to wire every house and business for multiple ISP's. Maybe in high density areas but there's a ton of the country where that just won't work.

Net neutrality isn't any more management by the gov than any other law. It's been around under Title II laws for hard phone lines for decades.

Even if we had 3 broadband providers to choose from the chances of one of them adhering to net neutrality principles is slim to none. Comcast is trying to buy TWC, and they have a combined 50 million accounts. If you figure 3 people per account that's half of the US.

Actually it's not cost prohibitive to wire for multiple ISP's as that is what is being done all over the EU and other areas of the world. When service is being installed they pu up to 4 cables and allow not only multiple providers, but also for a mix and match system. ATT could give you voice while VZ gives you data and Comcast supplies video. It's doable, we just don't want to because there is no real reason to do so. Our ISP have an infrastructure that they milk because they have no competition to drive them to do things differently. Look at our AO: we have ATT UVERSE or TWC. That's it no other competition. With Google coming in and pulling fiber to some homes that may kick the others in gear. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

The whole pulling multiple cables is going to become a moot argument if the small cell wireless devices become efficient and profitable. No need for wires in the home, just a receiver. So anyone can broadcast and while we may all glow in a decade multiple providers could have access to a home by simply placing an antenna on a pole.

Just so we are clear. I have no issue with a law or regulation that required my provider to deliver all content to my house at a rate we agree upon. If I pay for 10Mbs then I expect my porn, netflix or UVERSE upgrade request to arrive at the same rate. However, rarely is anything the government does that cut and dried. I'd rather we figure out a way to allow more competition than allow more government intrusions.

[TAZ]

While virtually no politician on either side accomplishes jack **** to repeal laws that curtail innovation, jobs, and industry. The major thing holding us back from being the industrial superpower we were in the 40's and 50's is government strangulation. The talk show people and politicians talk about it but it gets worse instead of better. WTF?

This is generally the case because we rarely EVER look to see what the root cause is for any "issue". Much simpler to just write some more pages of mumbo jumbo than take a step back and see what is really going on. To the power hungry It's also unthinkable that deleting some of their little empires is a valid path forward.

[Belmont31R]

Actually it's not cost prohibitive to wire for multiple ISP's as that is what is being done all over the EU and other areas of the world. When service is being installed they pu up to 4 cables and allow not only multiple providers, but also for a mix and match system. ATT could give you voice while VZ gives you data and Comcast supplies video. It's doable, we just don't want to because there is no real reason to do so. Our ISP have an infrastructure that they milk because they have no competition to drive them to do things differently. Look at our AO: we have ATT UVERSE or TWC. That's it no other competition. With Google coming in and pulling fiber to some homes that may kick the others in gear. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

The whole pulling multiple cables is going to become a moot argument if the small cell wireless devices become efficient and profitable. No need for wires in the home, just a receiver. So anyone can broadcast and while we may all glow in a decade multiple providers could have access to a home by simply placing an antenna on a pole.

Just so we are clear. I have no issue with a law or regulation that required my provider to deliver all content to my house at a rate we agree upon. If I pay for 10Mbs then I expect my porn, netflix or UVERSE upgrade request to arrive at the same rate. However, rarely is anything the government does that cut and dried. I'd rather we figure out a way to allow more competition than allow more government intrusions.

Europe is a lot more dense than we are so the cost per mile to run cable is much cheaper per customer. Germany for instance, is not much bigger than New Mexico yet has almost 90 million residents. I'm not saying it's not impossible to pull cables to each house just that it would be much more expensive in the states.

I don't really see another option to net neutrality that would ensure customers are getting what they pay for.

[TAZ]

Actually there are a lot of issues in the EU that we in merica don't have to deal with a lot. That increased density may mean fewer reels of cable but it has its own headaches. Add ordinances on the aesthetics of the wiring running along exterior walls and such and it's just a differ set of headaches. They manage to deal with it and allow for more consumer choice.

The solution to more government meddling the Internet and our access to information is more competition. If customers can change providers based on performance instead of what's available you'd see more neutrality than via any government intervention. IMO solving that riddle is a far more important thing than figuring out how to let more government into our lives.

IMO even if the net neutrality thing comes out as a simple you must guarantee the rate you promised and billed for; all that will result in is EVERY provider guaranteeing something low and then sending the preferred packets at a faster rate than the guarantee. Now what? You have more laws and the same crappy service.

[Belmont31R]

Actually there are a lot of issues in the EU that we in merica don't have to deal with a lot. That increased density may mean fewer reels of cable but it has its own headaches. Add ordinances on the aesthetics of the wiring running along exterior walls and such and it's just a differ set of headaches. They manage to deal with it and allow for more consumer choice.

The solution to more government meddling the Internet and our access to information is more competition. If customers can change providers based on performance instead of what's available you'd see more neutrality than via any government intervention. IMO solving that riddle is a far more important thing than figuring out how to let more government into our lives.

IMO even if the net neutrality thing comes out as a simple you must guarantee the rate you promised and billed for; all that will result in is EVERY provider guaranteeing something low and then sending the preferred packets at a faster rate than the guarantee. Now what? You have more laws and the same crappy service.



If you don't want meddling then Comcast is about to control 50% of the broadband accounts in the US, and they've been at the tip of the spear to 'ruin the internet'. Unfortunately there's only a few other broadband providers in the US as TWC will cease to exist, AT&T is monitoring your traffic for ads, Verizon sucks, ect. Google Fiber has a very small footprint.

It would really take a dozen or more major ISP's to get 1 or 2 that wouldn't do what the others are. In short, competition can cure some things but I don't see that happening. The telecoms who could compete are all on board opposing any sort of basic standards like treating all packets the same.

And it's not really meddling. These companies built their infrastructure out using Title II easements and right of ways. Now they're claiming they aren't Title II networks. If they'd built them out how they should have if they don't want net neutrality rules they should have not used Title II. There's a lack of accountability here that people want them to get away with because it's 'meddling'. Verizon agreed to wire all of New Jersey and have it done years ago with fiber no less. They haven't lived up to their end of the deal and have no intentions of doing so.

[HKGuns]

Consider yourself lucky Google fiber has a very small footprint. Google would sell your soul and everyone in your family, if given the opportunity and most of the sheeple line up for the shit.

The internet was ruined after 911.

Here is a question for you......what makes our Government monitoring any different than the monitoring done by Communist China? Because the people in control are altruistic? Garbage, you need look no further than the IRS scandal to see where that leads. All of this horse-CRAP in the name of keeping the sheeple safe. Horse-CRAP. But it should sound familiar to gun enthusiasts.

Cisco had to make public NSA requests to insert back doors into hardware for monitoring as being harmful to sales. Yet, we cried like spoiled babies over Communist China doing the same with Huawei. Somehow it is different for us than it is them? Horse-CRAP.

Trust No-One

[TAZ]

Companies built out their infrastructure unsing Title II rules and easements cause the government regulators and lawyers allowed them to do so. ATT, VZ, Sprint et al didn't just wake up one day and decide to **** it and go. Their lawyers found ways around the government regulations which most likely were put there on purpose. What you are suggesting is that the solution to one set of screwed up government regulations that were worked around be fixed by another set of screwed up regulations. That's how we get the gazillion pages of crap the stifles innovation, growth and investment.

What are you going to do when your ISP changes it's contract and states that the 10MBs service you were laying for today will now only guarantee 2MBs so they can be 100% net neutrality compliant. Your Netflix will buffer and pixelate while your Democratic Underground will scream at 20 Mbs as will other items that your ISP thinks will bring them more value. What are you going to complain about then? They are operating within their contract conditions. Nothing went below 2Mbs.

Government is not going to solve the thing it had a hand in breaking.

[Trajan]

If we have a monopoly on broadband, we need net neutrality. Monopoly or not, TWC is pretty much the only game in town for me anyway.

Without net neutrality, ads will come in at 35mbps, and everything else will be poverty 56k levels.

Private industry or not, if gas and electricity are regulated as public necessity, in this day and age so should the internet.

[Belmont31R]

Companies built out their infrastructure unsing Title II rules and easements cause the government regulators and lawyers allowed them to do so. ATT, VZ, Sprint et al didn't just wake up one day and decide to **** it and go. Their lawyers found ways around the government regulations which most likely were put there on purpose. What you are suggesting is that the solution to one set of screwed up government regulations that were worked around be fixed by another set of screwed up regulations. That's how we get the gazillion pages of crap the stifles innovation, growth and investment.

What are you going to do when your ISP changes it's contract and states that the 10MBs service you were laying for today will now only guarantee 2MBs so they can be 100% net neutrality compliant. Your Netflix will buffer and pixelate while your Democratic Underground will scream at 20 Mbs as will other items that your ISP thinks will bring them more value. What are you going to complain about then? They are operating within their contract conditions. Nothing went below 2Mbs.

Government is not going to solve the thing it had a hand in breaking.


Treating all packets the same is net neutrality. What the ISP's want is 'internet fast lanes' which is not net neutrality. What you're describing is an internet fast lane where some packets are sped up within their network.

Net neutrality isn't guaranteeing my 50mbps connection always operates at 50mbps. It just means my 'up to' 50mbps always operates the best they can no matter the source. They can't throttle Netflix or gun sites or anyone who hasn't paid them off (and every other website). Most websites cant do anywhere near 50mbps anyways.


As far as building out their network those aren't screwed up regulations. There has to be some standard for use of easements. Utilities can use easements and that's so services can be installed. One homeowner can't block easement use to the rest of their neighborhood for water or gas or electric. For decades phone lines were considered utilities and these companies used their utility status to build these networks. Now they're claiming they aren't a utility, and Obama appointed a former telecom industry lobbyist to head the FCC. No doubt a gift for donations.

Earlier this year the FCC lost a court case against Verizon, and the judge basically told the FCC to regulate them as a utility. Now the former lobbyist, and head of the FCC is ignoring that and trying to give up on any sort of classification as a utility.

If the ISP's want to build a network without any sort of regulations then they don't get any easement use. Want to run your cable through my yard? $1000 a foot and $5000 per day use fee. Then people would bitch when they decline my offer and the rest of the neighborhood can't get cable or internet.

[Belmont31R]

Consider yourself lucky Google fiber has a very small footprint. Google would sell your soul and everyone in your family, if given the opportunity and most of the sheeple line up for the shit.

The internet was ruined after 911.

Here is a question for you......what makes our Government monitoring any different than the monitoring done by Communist China? Because the people in control are altruistic? Garbage, you need look no further than the IRS scandal to see where that leads. All of this horse-CRAP in the name of keeping the sheeple safe. Horse-CRAP. But it should sound familiar to gun enthusiasts.

Cisco had to make public NSA requests to insert back doors into hardware for monitoring as being harmful to sales. Yet, we cried like spoiled babies over Communist China doing the same with Huawei. Somehow it is different for us than it is them? Horse-CRAP.

Trust No-One


So far Google Fiber doesn't come with any monitoring like AT&T is doing. That would be exposed pretty quick in the TOS.

I don't agree with gov spying in the US but that's a different animal. I don't want AT&T or Google or Comcast or the govt keeping tabs. Every browser I use I disable 3rd party tracking, and install plugins. I don't use consumer gmail. Like it or not advertising is tracked in a ton of different ways. Junk mail has been flooding our mail boxes for decades. A lot of that is through tracking. All these credit card offers?