After President Obama announced his plan for net neutrality, Senator Ted Cruz called it the "Obamacare of the internet."
In the fact that the Government is trying to take over a privatized industry, I can see how you could compare the two, but other than that, I don't see the comparison.
People must be basing their vote on the names/political parties involved. Why on earth would you want the internet to be messed with?! I don't want ISP's to be slowing down my Netflix just because they won't bend to outrageous demands...
..This is a 1st, but I agree with Obama
Republicans! No! What are you doing? STHAP!!!
Seriously, fellow conservatives, we need to push as hard for net neutrality as anyone else. It's the neutral, fair, honest option.
This Adminstration has a real knack for finding everything to focus on other than the things that actually need attention & for which they have responsibility, especially if it means WeThePeople have one less Liberty to concern ourselves about...
Net neutrality is what we used to have. It's not govt controlling anything it's just govt preventing telecom companies from picking and choosing who gets what speeds. Please educate yourself.
Issue, for me, is not merits of net neutrality but fact current/recent-past (especially last 10-20 yrs) Admins spend inordinate amount of time sucking life & Liberty from our lives in myriad ways "for our own good" to point I'm suspicious of ALL!!!
Your obnoxious condescension? ...
Those articles are completely missing he point. This is not about govt regulating anything. It's about all data being treated equally. It's laughable to talk about cronyism against net neutrality
When it's cronyism who is against it. Eliminating net neutrality means Internet providers can dictate pay to play on companies and customers who have big data or content they don't like. Btw look who donated to Cruz...oh yea Comcast (shocker I know)
PS if you want to play the link game I can find a couple dozen for you as well.
I'm not impressed...
If you want to convince me. I'd like to hear from you not an article why everyone shouldn't be allowed equal speeds regardless of data content or size. Why should comcast get to choose who gets what speeds?
Im for net neutrality bc it allows everyone a chance to broadcast data equally. A small business shouldn't be choked out bc they can't offer online services due to a pay to play system from an internet provider
Internet providers for many have very few choices so saying those unhappy can leave is a stretch. Also they've already slowed service to some including Netflix for one
Look up where chambers of commerce, the start up community, and the tech community stand on the issue as groups for the most part
Having previously - months ago - spent excessive amount of time trying to find out precisely what Net Neutrality is/isn't I came to unmistakable conclusion that *no one* knows.
Ppl of stature from all over the net state diametrically opposing "facts" with equal certainty. Anything that convoluted no professional experienced consensus can be found = suspect.
Not convinced by your case either.
That's fair and I agree that the issue is hard bc it's hard to tell what it actually looks like or will look like. All I'm saying is opposing just bc it's an Obama idea is silly and that's why my first comment was so harsh
My main concern is that I don't want people to be unable to broadcast open information in a system that requires pay to play. I'm worried bc we've seen slowdowns and throttling before (Netflix)
All I want is for everyone to have access to view, create, & broadcast data on a level playing field without seeing ANYONE govt or telecom companies interfering
I apologize if my tone came off harsh but I've seen many on here especially have the opinion that just bc it's an Obama idea it immediately must be bad.
I just worry immensely about the fact that so much money has been given to republicans to oppose net neutrality it's hard not to think cronyism by the Repubs in my eyes
I don't oppose NN "just becuz it's Obama," although it is fair to say that doesn't improve my confidence. I don't *support* it becuz every GEEK I listen to/read on issue contradicts each other!!!
I'm sorry but that's how ur first comment came off to me. Anyhow I'm just hopeful this issue gets attention and a serious conversation bc the consequences either way have the potential to be extremely damaging
If no one knows what it will do, & they don't, don't do anything until we DO!
There may well be something that needs to be done. Whatever that "something" is should have predictable results. This doesn't. I oppose doing "something" recklessly.
Ok that's fair enough. I guess my difference of opinion with you is I can't see harm in protecting against internet providers potentially changing speeds on the small fish
Too often Gov "fixes" work like this: "something needs to be done. This is something. Therefore this must be done." With absolutely NO regard for whether "this" addresses problem, symptoms of problems, or just makes things worse & wasting resources.
Anyhow I'll just leave with that.
IF that's what Net Neutrality will ACTUALLY do, I completely agree. I can find no consensus - among those who deal w/Internet everyday professionally - & that makes NN sketchy, @ best.
Why do ppl looking @ same info w/similar experience come to completely diametric conclusions, consistently? A good portion I've followed finally said they just don't know!
I can't bring myself to support something with that much confusion & conflict in conclusions among ppl w/sufficient knowledge & experience they *should* be able to come to an overall agreement & confidence of results. IDEA sounds great, but...
That is a hard question to answer. I'm not in the field enough to say one way or another. What I do know is the fundamental principle of net neutrality was ORIGINALLY intended to promote freedom for all to have equality, I will always defend
I hope before anything is done we can have a real investigation into net neutrality and have decisions guided by consensus in the tech community. Letting big $ telecom companies guide the decision on this is equally scary
The money trail to those opposing net neutrality CAN NOT be ignored in this process
Sorry didn't mean to cut you off mid comment there
I've actively looked for ppl directly affected & knowledgable on Internet, not particularly political but rabid tech-ologists, who could provide information/perspective on issue. Ppl who highly respect each other. They can't agree...
... If they can't sort it out there is just something wonky & untrustworthy in *whatever* it is that is trying to be done. After ACA, better be clear & unmitigated if my support is to be given.
Straighten out details, eliminate confusion = support.
The one thing I dislike/distrust more than the gov't is the internet/cable companies. They. Are. The. Worst!
Ask him which of the Internets he had in Canada.
Here is a nice Q&A outlining the pros & cons of net neutrality. Read up learn the real issues and not just the talking points. Make no mistake this is a HUGE issue which could have very big consequences both ways.
His worst enemy is his own mouth. It's kind of funny.
You're right, he IS a dumbass. Well put.
Net neutrality is nothing more than insurance that all data be given an equal opportunity to broadcast & distributed throughout the web. I hope the media covers this topic so people will better understand it.
Who doesn't have the opportunity?
Without net neutrality internet providers can pick and choose who gets better speeds vs just baseline speeds.
But who does not have the opportunity to broadcast and distribute on the web?
Read the links. It's lengthy to explain in comments. But I will try
With net neutrality all data is treated equally meaning everyone can upload and download at the same speed no special treatment given.
Give me just a few minutes so I can think how to condense this down to explain.
Basically without net neutrality a company can charge a company more money to use their bandwidth based on relationships and create a situation where they are giving preferential treatment to some businesses over others
The goal of net neutrality is that all data regardless of source or content pay the same amount to broadcast. It's preventing a pay to play system where people are bidding for faster internet speeds.
Small tech companies especially those that rely on say streaming services are freaking out because some of them could have to choose to either pay for faster speed or not be able to provide their content.
The company I work for produces sponsored live webinars. If they can't afford to be in the "fast lane" there is potential they get just the baseline speed service bc of how much data they broadcast & that speed might not be enough for their webinars
There is no reason they should have to pay extra or bribe a telecom company to get same service speed as anyone else. If you don't think telecom companies will pilau favorites check out what's happened to Netflix.
Hope that makes some sense. Like I said it's a very complex issue and hard to condense down without me sitting down to write like an entire blog post. That's why I posted the links. It's an interesting topic so I hope you will read up
PS - sorry for probably blowing up your push notices with all those comments. Damn you character limits.
What people don't get about net neutrality is it is preventing a pay for play system with internet speeds. Why should a company have to pay more to get equal speeds just because they are not partners with say comcast? Makes no sense.
Where are people getting the idea that net neutrality = govt run internet? Honestly people research the freaking issue! It's about making sure all data is treated equally that's all.
Fvdbr rfbeb7'u,ukmhrdg. Righ,I,hint here's h we35!4$9
A dumb-as-sh*t comment from an idiot senator. What a disgrace to Texas and America...
Wanna bet Obama f**** it up.
I feel a czar in my heart (insert treble clef)
The URL speaks for itself. dontbreakthe.net
I'm tossed up with it. On one hand is good for web companies, and on the other the FCC could abuse the power and regulate the internet like it does with TV and Radio.
and when you take away net neutrality, evil companies can easily abuse it. Several YouTube videos explain why we need it. Them taking Net Neutrality will help them make "fast lanes" and indirectly censor the internet.
Socialist love to control your life.
rons, how is net neutrality anything even remotely like socialist control?
I guess it's like socialist control if you don't know what socialism really is, you just throw around the term because you heard it on conservative talk radio. Give the guy a break.
Don't pay attention to Ron; it's past 10 pm he's drunk by now.
Not a fan of Obama but I don't know why anyone would be opposed to net neutrality..
This user is currently being ignored
Because it gives the FCC the authority to regulate the internet like they do with TV and Radio.
I've noticed more conservatives have become against net neutrality since Obama announced his approval of it.
Funny how that works, huh?
Nah I don't believe that's true, for that would be just too pathetic for words... :p
That's probably true, but it's not a phenomena that's unique to conservatives. I've noticed that more democrats support war since Obama started engaging in it. See? It works both ways.
Yukon: True, but I don't think any party has gone quite so spectacularly "all-in" as the GOP decided to do, on the evening of Obama's inauguration.
Not sure what you mean. Do you mean "all in" against Obama on the eve of his inauguration? True, very true if that's what you mean.
Yes that's what I meant.
I've observed that both parties are anxious to hate on the other's president. I've also observed that people have a tendency to recognize qualities in others, but not see it all in themselves. I'm sure a republitard would feel that democrats
went all-in against GW Bush. It's been a while, but remember back to the vitriol against him. It was intense too. Not sure that either president had it worse than the other.
Didn't live in the USA during Bush, but I agree that was pretty full-on. But compare the amount of bipartisan cooperation with Bush to Obama, major difference there.
In fact it has crossed my mind that a republican president might be able to govern more effectively than a dem, simply because it's unlikely the democrats could be as bloody-minded as the GOP. They're not as ideologically motivated.
"They're not as ideologically motivated." OK Fred. :-)
That is what Ted said...I don't agree with it. Btw, Comcast is a big political donor to Ted Cruz. Thus....support for Ted Cruz on this topic is a proxy vote for Comcast.
The most hated company in the country I think.
www.inthepublicinterest.org/node/457 "Cost overruns combined with hidden and indirect costs, such as contract monitoring and administration, can make privatization more expensive than in-house services for governments."
I don't know. Did he? Am I supposed to research an answer to this question?
You're supposed to say whether or not you agree with his statement
I guess I read it too literally. :p
It's Monday, tends to happen haha
I may have over-caffeinated.
Disclaimer inspired by first two comments. Here's what net neutrality actually is: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
All I got from the message is that this means more government regulation.
Aran. Not to point out the obvious, but this guy isn't even a conservative. He's trying to poke fun at conservatives by exaggerating their viewpoints. Maybe it's not so obvious here, but in other polls it's much more readily observable. FYI.
Yeah, I've been accused of that before. It's a possibility. :-)
Because it helps make sure those who would otherwise have limited service have the same opportunity for access as the rich guys? Please tell me this isn't the first time I agree with Cruz.
OMG, Zod... With your new pic, you seriously look like my high school biology teacher. :)
Oh man, biology? It couldn't be something cool like Physics, Systems Programming, or Mechanical Engineering? Good looking guy though...
Net neutrality = Good
He won't stop until the Government owns everything.
are you kidding me... do you know what net neutrality is? This is the one thing you should agree with The President on...
No; cowboy doesn't know what net neutrality means.
The private sector can run a service much better than the government ever thought about running a service. The less government the better.
 Also, www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/04/04/you-cannot-run-a-public-service-like-a-business-and-heres-why/
Citation needed still hits my funny bone.
... you've got to be kidding me you should be for bet neutrality
Aran, the government can't even run a website properly. The less the government is involved the better.
its not about the government running the internet its about not letting companies buy the internet
What's wrong with a company paying YouTube more money for a "fast lane"? I don't have a problem with it.
That doesn't make sense pol, you have it backwards. The issue is with the ISP's charging companies like YouTube for a fast lane. In itself that's not inherently wrong. The problem is with actively throttling that company to coerce them to pay.
And by the way, it's absurd to take an example like the exchange website fuckup, and elevate it to The Government Can't Do Websites, then even further to The Government Can't Do Anything!
Then go to a different internet service provider. The internet just needs minimum regulations. Let the free market work.
The government can't do anything efficient. Look at our debt. Look at the pork. Look at Obamacare. Look at the waste. Look at the VA mess.
I agree that would be a good solution in a free-market with adequate competition.
See what I did there? The problem is that for high speed Internet access, the ISP's have an effective monopoly.
Wait wait wait...you don't think a fast lane is necessarily bad?
Anything efficient? Absolutes like that are Absolute Nonsense. I was just looking at houses in Anaheim where a perk is the City runs the utilities. Why? Because they do it cheaper and more efficiently than private companies.
No not inherently wrong, and in fact dig deeper into the internet's infrastructure and you will find that is how much of the Internet works. My issue is with the "last mile" connection to your home that the ISP's monopolize.
You get the point, Fredd. The government has trouble running programs efficiently.
So, you disagree with Obama's suggestion?
I think it's a rather ham-fisted, sledgehammer way to crack the nut, but the alternatives are probably more unpalatable and difficult to enact.
It still blows my mind that so many conservatives understand Net Neutrality exactly backwards from what it actually is. I don't even...
Well most of how the Internet works is completely opaque to the user, and depending on what news sources you choose they will completely mischaracterize the issue for obvious reasons.
For the record, I explained it correctly on my poll (before this poll). On this poll, I did in fact say it backwards. I apologize.
Np. But to reiterate, it's not the fast lane thats the issue to me. It's enforcing a slow lane to coerce payment. It's basically Internet highway robbery.