Ted Cruz running for Prez

[Hrbowski]

 

Now, I wouldn't only go by any person's opinion, regardless of how educated it is, but Brock's opinion on this topic is very, very well-informed and trustworthy, certainly moreso than about 99.98% of the people from either side that have been on television talking about it.  Take the time to do your research and weigh Brock's opinion on the matter in that light, but calling his opinion as anything but based on intense research and knowledge of the subject area bugs me, and I'm not even the guy who's spent the time doing the research.

I don't watch television, and I actually am researching this quite a bit and am not going to listen to the mainstream media when it comes to anything. I try to read as much possible from both sides of the spectrum and talk to people about it.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

That's not true at all.

 

Our internet prices already aren't competitive. The problem with ISPs is that they're not free market. They have handshake agreements not to enter each others' markets and then they provide lackluster service at high prices. Despite inventing the internet, the US lags behind most of the industrial world in internet speed. For example, I live within Minneapolis' city limits. The MSP market is the 15th largest in the United States. How many "choices" do I have for broadband? One. Yes, one. Where's your competition?

 

You think this will make pricing less competitive? Then why was Google - the biggest market disruption in ISPs right now - champing at the bit for reclassification because it allows them access to poles and infrastructure?

 

ISPs are terrified of Google getting access and for good reason: Google is swooping into cities and destroying the competition with low prices and speeds (on average) fifty times faster than what traditional ISPs are offering their customers. In markets that Google has entered (Kansas City, Austin, and a handful of others), established ISPs have been forced to reduce pricing and increase bandwidth to keep up with what Google is doing.

 

You want your free market, you got it.

 

And I haven't even brought up the content delivery side of the coin, which is actually the most important piece of the reclassification. Consumers won with this reclassification. It's that simple. The only losers were the established ISPs who want to protect their gravy train. Oh, and the politicians who take money to protect that gravy train... Like Ted Cruz.

I'm more concerned with what Google will take from you in order to give you those blazing speeds, and if the government really wanted to do something, then they should be far more concerned with rights to privacy and controlling what data companies collect and are allowed to keep about consumers. 

 

I agree that competition needs to change, but net neutrality is nothing more than an attempt to control what goes on the internet, by providing a means to price less than desirable elements out of the market.  It's claim that it's all about the child porn is the part that I find ridiculous.  That unfortunately, will still happen, it will be those who are inconvenient to the establishment that will suffer... them and the small ISPs.  Those are the ones who will really suffer.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I fear corporate money and greed will win this. 

They won when it was passed.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm more concerned with what Google will take from you in order to give you those blazing speeds, and if the government really wanted to do something, then they should be far more concerned with rights to privacy and controlling what data companies collect and are allowed to keep about consumers. 

I agree that Google's privacy track record is a bit spotty but you're wearing a tinfoil hat, diehard. Google has a vested interest in seeing customers with blazing fast internet... so those customers can consume more Google content.

 

There's no grand conspiracy here. Google doesn't track data for mining purposes with Fiber. Direct from Google's Fiber page:

 

"Technical information collected from the use of Google Fiber Internet for network management, security or maintenance may be associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber, but such information associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber will not be used by other Google properties without your consent. Other information from the use of Google Fiber Internet (such as URLs of websites visited or content of communications) will not be associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber, except with your consent or to meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request."

 

I have plenty of issues with Google but not every single thing they do is about mining customer data. They saw a giant, gaping hole in ISP coverage and walked right through it because it's going to make them piles and piles of money.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Also, this is a good primer video on net neutrality and why this situation is so entirely jacked up, all put into layman terms.

 

It's a long video but it gives a good timeline of events so you can see just how ****ed up this is.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMyTwmu_M

[diehardtwinsfan]

I agree that Google's privacy track record is a bit spotty but you're wearing a tinfoil hat, diehard. Google has a vested interest in seeing customers with blazing fast internet... so those customers can consume more Google content.

 

There's no grand conspiracy here. Google doesn't track data for mining purposes with Fiber. Direct from Google's Fiber page:

 

"Technical information collected from the use of Google Fiber Internet for network management, security or maintenance may be associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber, but such information associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber will not be used by other Google properties without your consent. Other information from the use of Google Fiber Internet (such as URLs of websites visited or content of communications) will not be associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber, except with your consent or to meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request."

 

I have plenty of issues with Google but not every single thing they do is about mining customer data. They saw a giant, gaping hole in ISP coverage and walked right through it because it's going to make them piles and piles of money.

I agree that they have a vested interest in that, but their track record says otherwise, and until there are major changes within that organization, I'll stand by my right to not trust them. It wouldn't be the first time they (or other orgs like them) changed their terms of service once they had a foothold in the market.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I agree that they have a vested interest in that, but their track record says otherwise, and until there are major changes within that organization, I'll stand by my right to not trust them. It wouldn't be the first time they (or other orgs like them) changed their terms of service once they had a foothold in the market.

The amount of blowback from that kind of ToS change - not to mention the questionable legality of doing such a thing - would be catastrophic to Google's PR.

 

I'm not even convinced Google wants Fiber to be dominant in the market. I've received the impression that they created Fiber more to prove that widespread gigabit without data caps can be profitable; an attempt to show consumers just how badly they're getting hosed by their ISPs. This is backed up by how slowly Google is expanding Fiber; given Google's assets and market influence, they could be rolling Fiber out exponentially faster than they are right now.

 

Because widespread gigabit is going to help Google's bottom line in the long run. By showcasing Fiber, Google is firing a very public shot across the bow of established telecom/cable, trying to show America just how badly they're getting screwed by ISPs. If Google pushes the rest of the telecom industry forward, they win in the long run, even if Fiber never becomes a significant portion of their business.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

The amount of blowback from that kind of ToS change - not to mention the questionable legality of doing such a thing - would be catastrophic to Google's PR.

 

I'm not even convinced Google wants Fiber to be dominant in the market. I've received the impression that they created Fiber more to prove that widespread gigabit without data caps can be profitable; an attempt to show consumers just how badly they're getting hosed by their ISPs. This is backed up by how slowly Google is expanding Fiber; given Google's assets and market influence, they could be rolling Fiber out exponentially faster than they are right now.

 

Because widespread gigabit is going to help Google's bottom line in the long run. By showcasing Fiber, Google is firing a very public shot across the bow of established telecom/cable, trying to show America just how badly they're getting screwed by ISPs. If Google pushes the rest of the telecom industry forward, they win in the long run, even if Fiber never becomes a significant portion of their business.

 

I miss my FIOS.  I don't miss Verizon  

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree on your first point.  Google has done plenty of things that I would think would be catastrophic to their PR.  This is the same company that was using their vehicles to automatically enter into any wireless system that wasn't password protected and mine data. Not to mention choosing to blatantly ignore the default privacy settings when Microsoft set some default settings in IE to disable certain types of tracking (kind of like how the default privacy settings in Chrome are something that very few people would willingly accept).  This is the same company who will never remove data you delete from their cloud.

 

You may be right that this is more or less a push to show people that fiber is viable, but at the end of the day, I have a real tough time believing that this isn't a way for them to get their hands on more of your and my personal data. 

[kydoty]

 

People are delusional in this thread. There is only one

 

 

Alan Dershowitz called Ted Cruz the smartest law student he's ever taught. 

 

Ted Cruz is an incredibly intelligent man who knows exactly what his constituents want.  He doesn't actually believe a damn thing that comes out of his mouth.  He's speaking for his idiot voters.

[Mike Sixel]

 

But net neutrality is just going to make internet prices non-competitive like how Obamacare made insurance prices non-competitive, because if internet prices go up a good deal of people while either not be able to pay there bill or just won't use it and the biggest internet servers will be able to swallow up the smaller ones; therefore making them non-competitive. Plus I think it is good to have multiple views on a committee and I think your reason for wanting to kick him of is a poor one.

 

Uh, do you know anything about insurance prices, how fast they were rising before ACA, and how fast they have risen since? Or, are you just spouting stuff? because, I can tell you (working in insurance, this is my opinion, not necessarily my company's*), that ACA has not cause insurance to be less competitive, just the opposite, in fact.

 

*I'm required to type something like that.....

[ashbury]

 

Uh, do you know anything about insurance prices, how fast they were rising before ACA, and how fast they have risen since? Or, are you just spouting stuff?

The "wacky morning duo" on the news station in Reno couldn't resist a dig the other day when one of them said he had a sore shoulder or something, and the other one opined that he probably couldn't afford to go to the doctor to have it treated "because of Obamacare". Like that's how any of this works on decisions about an individual appointment, particularly for people pulling down six figures. But that's the narrative the station pushes all day.