Ted Cruz Wants to Slow Down Your Netflix

Predictable result.  This is why we can't have nice things.

AT&T Inc on Wednesday raised pressure on the U.S. telecom regulator's work on new "net neutrality" rules, saying it would stop investing in new high-speed Internet connections in 100 U.S. cities until the Web traffic rules are settled.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/t-pause-fiber-investment-until-net-neutrality-rules-134516021--finance.html

when tea party types are for more regulation and nobel prize "winning' democrats are for war..you cannot be that fucking stupid to not think that the two parties mean nothing. They are just serving whomever holds the purse strings.

this from Breitbart if anyone is interested: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/11/11/Government-Enforced-Net-Neutrality-is-Problematic

I know the Observer can't help but stick its neck out and write about things it doesn't understand, but in this case it's sort of out of control (ironic given that you are giving Ted Cruz a hard time about not knowing what net neutrality is when you clearly have no clue yourselves - pot, kettle). 

For starters, comparing this to the electricity market might make sense, but it might make sense if you knew how the electricity market actually works. Electricity during high demand periods costs a heck of a lot more than during low demand periods. That's true everywhere. Just because you probably have a contract that charges you a single rate per unit of consumption doesn't mean that's how it is actually priced. 

The reality is that there is currently no such thing as net neutrality (as characterized publicly by companies like Netflix), and that's a good thing. It has been what has allowed the internet to grow into what it is today. There are mechanisms that could improve service and make things more transparent, but that's not what "net neutrality" advocates are asking for, and it's definitely not what Obama is asking for.

Do you consider yourself a conservative? Do you consider yourself an informed conservative? If Yes to both, come back here and we'll talk, after you read this. (For the record, I consider The Verge just a step above USA Today, but this article is a particularly good one in any publication.)

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7187501/6-reasons-real-conservatives-should-defy-republicans-and-support-net

Item 1: 

It is so obvious when people base their view on an issue simply based on Obama's point of view. Just more proof the less government line is bullshit.  Republican leaders actually want more government yet they simply don't want it regulated so they can figure out a way to make their rich contributors richer thus insuring their own re-election.  Middle class Christians want more than the missionary position in their free porn even though they never watch that crap.   Once Jeb Bush, the most Jesus Bush of all, gets in office, the cost of free tit internet will be history, just like the middle class.  

Judging from my personal experience, the internet is by definition neutral toward content and has been since it's inception. Anyone with any opinion about anything can set up a site and put their ideas out for the world to read and evaluate.

From what I read, "Net Neutrality" is an improperly named move toward government censorship of content that the people who operate it have decided is harmful to their political agenda. I am thinking just now of the deconstruction of the 2nd Amendment and the forced disarmament of the civilian population as famously advocated by Senator Barbara Boxer. 

So from that point of view, Senator Cruz is correct. "Net Neutrality" is really just censorship of content critical of the government...a clear violation of the First Amendment protections of speech and press.   

Right now isps get common carrier status like fedex ups and usps. They are not held responsible for what folk ship through their communications infrastructure both data and logistics. They get that protection because they are seen as utilities

If we allow isps to discriminate by content then i say strip them of common carrier status and make them liable for every image of kiddie porn illicit bit torrent and dos attack packet. How does 50 million years in the federal pen for all the illicit content downloaded across verizons network on tuesday alone sound to verizons ceo?

Verizon et al want to have it both ways. They want common carrier protections but also want to discriminate by content.

net neutrality erupted after Apple introduced the iphone back a few years ago. a small minority of folks hog the bandwidth. the pipe providers want the bandwidth hawgs to pay for that. 

http://www.cato.org/blog/net-neutrality-or-destroying-internet-innovation-investment

http://www.aei.org/publication/here-is-a-better-idea-than-net-neutrality-competition/

so at one time the federal government reigned supreme over telecommunications. that brought us black phones with dials. you want to go back to that? seriously keep the government's hands off of the interwebs otherwise they'll screw it up like they've done with healthcare

Ted Cruz reminds me of a particularly useless leader about which one of my work colleagues observed "he is a legend in his own lunchtime". 

Ted Cruz, unlike most of the commenters here, knows precisely what net neutrality is. That's why opposes it. His tweet is a flat out lie, but hey, he got in his "Fartbama is da debil" dig.

'Net neutrality, of course, is the principle that all web traffic should be treated the same by service providers.'

Of course it is also a fiction as certain content providers are already taking advantage of  enhanced QOS under existing contracts in order to deliver information to end users in a timely manner.

I don't think anyone knows how the affordable care act works....

I guess Stephen doesn't realize that tiered-rate pricing is common in utilities like electricity and water.

@Catbird  Andrew Breitbart was an anti American Israeli-Firster who has a few left over followers with the same agenda. Worthless now.  Worthless then. 

@wcvemail all that bullshit and cliche just to say it's alright for them to fuck over everyone and charge every last red cent they can..just say it why beat around the bush

@anon-mouse

Work on a shorter version of your last sentence, we'll put it on t-shirts and bumper stickers.

@Catbird says "Anyone with any opinion about anything can set up a site and put their ideas out for the world to read and evaluate.

@Catbird

Re your second para lead, what in the not-so-wide world are you reading? I'm seriously curious. As for me, I've read from the WSJ to tech publications, from decisions about telco and ISP mergers to local market analysis. I've been familiar with the FCC's machinations for 15 years as I've worked in broadband and telephony. I have respect for my friends in the industry, and I get their companies' views when I ask.

NONE of these sources, going back since this issue first arose, have said that it's an "improperly named move toward government censorship ... political agenda." It's a lot of other things worthy of open discussion, but it ain't that.

With respect and a bit of pity, you need to widen your reading and think more critically, Catbird. And that's the very politest way you'll ever hear me say "You're full of shit," in honor of Veterans Day.

@roo_ster lots of rich folks in high up positions at multi-conglomerates go to jail all the time..right....

@TheRuddSki,

A "pedigree"?!?!?!?!?!?  That about says it all. His "pedigree" is his father's fifty years of toadying to uber wealthy people and cramming fascism down the throats of poor Latin Americans.  Quite.  A.  "Pedigree".  

@RTGolden1 Verizon is already threatening to sue the FCC over Net Neutrality rules that are still being worked on and aren't yet finalized. So does that answer whether or not net neutrality is good for us common folk?

And cell phone (and electricity, water and gas) pricing plans are based on how much you use, not where that data comes from. Net neutrality only deals with where the data comes from not how much you use.

@uppercasematt

I can't speak for Stephen's knowledge, but yes, that's a viable and sometimes necessary service model. People who speak beyond soundbites, that is, non-politicians and non-fringe loonies, realize that's something that can easily be arranged based on the very experience you mention. Nobody I've heard (outside the above two categories) is advocating for free-anything-goes-anytime internet.

Here's a good read on why conservatives should defy their party leadership and support net neutrality.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7187501/6-reasons-real-conservatives-should-defy-republicans-and-support-net

@wcvemail @Catbird  Here's how the playbook works: The people who run the government want to do something that will be unpopular with voters. So the planners and the doers get together and make a plan that nearly always looks like this: 1) Create a crisis. 2) Let the crisis be experienced until there is a public outcry for a solution. 3) The solution is always what the people who run the government wanted in the first place and that people in crisis will accept in exchange for making the crisis go away.

ie: The mystery" explosion of the USS Main in Havana harbor which William Randolph Hearst sensationalized to give President McKinley the cover for the Spanish-American War.

It's the way world works wcvemail and the "net neutrality crisis" is no different.          

@TheRuddSki

And let's shine that uncomfortable light on both sides of the aisle. In fact, if you took a survey of how many ever-lengthier bills our reps actually read, it would make us cry. And both houses are majority-lawyers, meaning smart people who have been trained to efficiently read lengthy and arcane references. "After we vote for the bill, we'll know what's in it" was apparently a real quote.

@TheRuddSki  Hey pal, your reference to the Special Olympics was most offensive.  Who do you think you are, President Obama?

@TheRuddSki

No, Ruddski*, with the use of the word "pedigree", you already stepped in the byproduct of those things which have pedigrees -- 

in other words, you bring dogshit.

*Responding to you directly, or even your allegedly female doppelganger, isn't as bad as it used to be when it occasioned long storms of 1:1 blather.

@wcvemail 

'We Have to Pass it to Find Out What's In It'.

Are we talking legislative act or stool sample?

@TheRuddSki

Piffle. Haven't we had enough of Magna cum laude/moot court champion/breeding tank pedigrees? Remember the bogus "reporting" that contrasted Kerry's and Bush's college grades? (neither very good)

What has Cruz done IRL besides campaign for office -- granted, he's done that very seriously and for a long time.

p.s. You know who's considered the very smartest pol to have come out of the 60s/70s eras? Gary Hart. That guy was Cruz for the Dems, not so vehement but just as strikingly communicative for the other side. I read a balanced, historical thing on him just the other day.