By 
Uh oh. The Oatmeal is mad. Here comes a beat-down.
The panel above is the beginning of comic that slams Senator Ted Cruz for not being educated about net neutrality. Cruz’ tweet was in response to President Barrack Obama coming out in support of reclassifying the internet service as a utility. This would allow the FCC to enforce more strict regulations to protect net neutrality.
Cruz is a Republican, so it’s not surprising he would be against anything Obama supports. That is a problem that The Oatmeal also tackles in the comic. Net neutrality is a bipartisan issue. Head on over to The Oatmeal to read the rest of this roasting comic. You could also use this comic to educate other people about net neutrality. We can save the internet!
So eager to hand control of the internet to an alphabet soup agency in Washington DC eh? The same group that gave you the IRS and NSA scandals you’re willing to give faith and trust to referee the playing field. Chrony capitalism is bad mmmmkay?
Insomuch as Net Neutrality is like Obamacare – it is in this regard. Its the government putting is overbearing, unwelcome presence where it does’t belong.
Edit: Oh lets not gloss over the fact that the FCC has plans on the books to tax the internet as a utility. Sounds great eh?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldfurchtgottroth/2014/10/12/fcc-plans-stealth-internet-tax-increase/
I think you should read the comic first or look more into what was said. No where is anyone trying to control pricing. They were stating that access to the internet should be treated as a utility.
who sets utility rates? the govt.
The State government might have some say in utility rates, but the rates themselves are set by the companies charging the rates. They also fluctuate.
The govt owns the utilities in a lot of places, Los Angeles being a prime example. Elsewhere they are taxed as part of their regulations.
I’d also like to point out in Florida we have public utilities and pay around 10cents a kilowatthour in New York they have deregulated utilities and I paid 35-50 cents per kilowatthour. So obviously competition doesn’t work in utilities to lower prices, there aren’t enough companies possible to ever prevent collusion. Yet fpl under state control provides me with cheap power.
The government regulates wireless bands so that your phones and television work. It regulates safety standards so your oven doesn’t burn your house down. The president wants to regulate the Internet, not so that the government can control it, but so that corporations can’t.
In the same way that your local radio station can’t drown out its competitors by flooding the radio waves, your local ISP shouldn’t be able to charge both you AND this website to deliver content that’s already being paid for. They shouldn’t be able to block or change it, either, just like the phone company can’t stop your call from going through to someone on a different carrier.
I’m a conservative. I’m not a fan of a lot of Obama’s policies. Net neutrality is urgent and necessary to preserve the Internet as a social and economic tool for everyone.
The government grants spectrum leases so that the wireless service providers don’t step on each others’ toes when it comes to interfering with one another. I don’t think I see the parallel as it relates to what “Net Neutrality” is supposed to resolve… are the ISP’s denial of service attacking their competitors?
“your local ISP shouldn’t be able to charge both you AND this website to deliver content that’s already being paid for.”
I have a hard time justifying this statement against your latter proclamation as a conservative. The ISP can charge for whatever they want. As a free market consumer, you don’t have to pay for it if you don’t see the value in the good or service they provide. The only issue with this arrangement in this case is the fact that there are not enough players in the ISP business to be able to compete effectively against each other. In many markets its a decision between Comcast (douchbag) vs. U-verse (turd sandwich).
What needs to happen is the barriers to entry for services like FiOS, Google Fiber, and other upstart providers so that true competition between services can take place. We don’t need the government telling these business how they administrate their networks. The consumer should be telling them – with their wallets.
The problem is its inefficient and expensive for 5 different companies to run lines your house, so any benefits from increased competition are lost to efficiency costs. That’s why the government only lets you have 1 choice of electric company.
That’s why your state government limits you. In much of Texas, you can choose your provider. Same lines.
Like how the FCC regulates what can and can’t be on broadcast tv and radio? That will be the Internet once the FCC has control of it. Plus censorship, taxes, full snooping access to NSA, government shutdown like they can with the cell networks during an attack, etc.
You are paranoid and delusional.
Neither, I’m a realist. If FCC takes over, all of those will be in place within a few short years with “pro-consumer” language to make you feel like its in your best interest.
Evidence for your claims?
You pay “taxes” on your wireless phone plans for “regulation” purposes. Why wouldn’t they do the same to the Internet? They already censor TV and radio, why wouldn’t they censor the Internet? NSA already tracks most of your Internet, why wouldn’t they make it part of the FCC regulations to get NSA full access to the ISP? They already can shutdown a cell tower at will for “emergency” situations. Why wouldn’t they do the same to the Internet?
Its a slippery slope and the government loves to slide.
Well, the mobile provider pays the taxes and then charges me for them. Something that really shouldn’t be legal, but it is what it is… not to mention, my cell phone prices have come down. Used to cost me $100 for less than what I have now. If they same happened to the internet, sounds like a deal to me.
They censor public television and radio. The internet is not public, not in the same sense anyway. Of course, they do require meager attempts at censorship already in regards to adult materials. Not that it really matters, but it is there.
The NSA doesn’t have nearly the access, nor amount of data, that you seem to think they do in regards to people on the internet.
The internet can’t be shutdown like a cellphone tower can, for one thing.
It is an imagined slippery slope. You are also using it in a fallacious way, you are ignoring the issue at hand for perceived possible issues in the future. There is no evidence that they will happen if the ISP’s get retitled.
Your cell phone prices have come down because of the free market not the government regulating them.
The Internet is public just like broadcast tv and radio (access is paid by you and the content is paid by ads or someone else). The Internet has content that is private and behind paywalls (just like paid tv/radio content), but the rest is public.
Wrong about NSA, they have more than you could imagine. This only gives them more access, easier and lawfully.
The Internet is easily shutdown, ask all the countries around the world that governments routinely shut down their Internet because they regulate the Internet.
ISPs would be regulated by the FCC, the FCC creates the regulations for this type of “utility”. The regulations will go as far as the people running it want to go.
The free market that only exists because of government oversight. Might want to add that in there.
No, the internet is not the same as public TV or radio. You can access both of those entirely for free beyond the cost of the hardware. Something that is not true of the internet. Barring public wifi, which is censored anyway.
Evidence for your NSA claim?
The internet is not very easily shut down. Those countries use a massive amount of infrastructure that they control entirely to firewall things outside of it… which is something that can be bypassed.
My utilities are cheap and plentiful, despite this apparently insanely evil group of people who oversee it. I pay less now than at any other point I have been alive. So you still have not shown any evidence for why it would happen the way you think it will, you just show fear that it might.
Give up. @Diviance is nothing more than a progressive stooge. Facts don’t matter to this moron.
Hahaha.
As of yet, nobody has actually shown an facts that what he is afraid will happen will, in fact, happen. Just fears that it will.
Don’t be stupid.
you come across as ignorant.
Ocean calling the puddle wet, huh?
Of course, I would rather come across that way than actually be that way like you.
yep, not to mention the extra taxes from all this “needed” regulation. govt sucks.always. they’ll soon be looking for sources of internet tax revenue. count on it.
Let’s not forget that the government already controls who can dig through people’s property to create internet opportunity as a business. To give this power to a select few, and then allow them to abuse how they see fit without the possibility of an open market of alternatives, I’m not sure how you possibly say that’d be a good thing? It’d be like the walled garden of mobile phones all over again… just on the web.
Not sure I follow your first statement. Who is the government empowering to dig through my property other than the IRS?
I think he means literally dig through your property…aka, Comcast digging through to run cables that provide you internet access. However, not just any company is able to do this as it is regulated and it is why the majority of people may only have one offering for high-speed internet.
Correct
My God. Your understanding of the Affordable Care Act is so poor, I can’t even begin to address it. Here’s a good place to start:
http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/law/index.html
stop pretending you know more than anyone else. you are ignorant and don’t understand what Obamacare is all about. you get your propaganda from the govt website. hardly a fountain of objective information.
I don’t know why you hate it, it is a conservative republican piece of legislation.
Funny since it was shoved down America’s throat without a single Republican vote but hey, what do facts matter?
And? Doesn’t change the origins of the thing, nor who first introduced it.
But hey, what do facts and history matter?
What he’s saying is that the whole concept was created by republicans, and the reason it didn’t get their vote is because Obama’s name was attached to it.
http://www.forbes.com/fearistheonlyenemy/fcukyourparanoia
From your comment i can tell you have a rather strong conservative bias. First off the quote IRS scandal is a nonscandal. The head of the IRS during the supposed scandal was a Bush appointee. And if you actually researched it what happened was that right-wing groups that claimed to be nonprofit were backing things of a political nature. There were also some left-wing groups doing the exact same things, but the only group charged was a left-wing group. This whole scandal was propagated by groups like Fox news spreading misinformation. And onto the NSA you’re completely right there the government completely outstepped their bounds, and while it doesn’t excuse their actions at all it was a continuation of post 9/11 Bush era policies. And onto you calling Obamacare overbearing, you do realize it preserves, and grows the healthcare industry, it’s far from a socialist system, which if you research it actually leads to the best healthcare systems in the world, there’s minimal government regulation akin to requiring car insurance. And the Affordable Care Act is based off conservative ideas the basis for it was The Individual mandate that Nixon proposed, and that was revived in the 90’s by Newt Gingrich and his buddies as their answer to Clintoncare. And before you call me some radical liberal, I’m more of a progressive moderate. I lean left on a lot of issues, but I’ve voted for Republicans mainly in my local area where all the Democrats here are basically criminals. And I don’t want some big nasty argument we all love Android hereI’d just like to look at things objectively.
You can’t get away from Obama derangement syndrome. The policies that republicans supported and have always supported are now blocked by republicans ONLY because Obama supports them. Cap and trade? Republican idea. Obamacare? Republican idea. Homeland security? Bush creation. When Obama supports them? TYRANNY!!!!!!
It’s almost gotten to the point of self parody.
Flawless
I’m not 100% certain I want the government getting involved in regulating more of the internet and how it’s used. I mean, they’ve screwed me over with “Obamacare” because my health insurance plan will cease to exist at the end of this year because it doesn’t fit the Obamacare standards.
So instead of paying $76/mo for excellent coverage, I will now be forced to either pay at least $200/mo for similar coverage, or a little less for catastrophic coverage which is useless unless I have an emergency to cover. I also shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to possibly qualify for a government assistance program to try and reduce the cost of said new insurance plan just to try and bring it closer to what I did have before this garbage took effect.
Bottom line: We see, slowly, what the hew healthcare law is doing for the public. Helping some. Hurting others. What’s to say the fantastic government (sarcasm) will not get greedy and go forward eventually harming some people in terms of internet regulations?
What?
try to keep up.
It’s hard to keep up with stupid.
With your retarded psychosis?
Ignoring the very real actions of right now for fear of potential actions you are paranoid about is insanity.
Or trying to fix the “very real actions of right now” for the HOPE that the future won’t get screwed over by more greedy and corrupt politicians means you’re still looking at this with rose tinted glasses for the right now.
“Who cares about the future when I can stream my favorite show anytime I want on Netflix for only X dollars and cents per month right now.”
Again, you show nothing but paranoia. They actions of right now need to be nipped in the bud. Otherwise, the future you are paranoid of will be the future we will wish would have come about.
Well, excuse me for being paranoid about an already overreaching government with the potential to get even more overreaching in the future. Sorry that you think the “right now” is more important than the future. Guess you feel you’ll die within a few months? Years? A couple of years after Net Neutrality passes?
If things are broken right now, they need to be fixed. Living in paranoia and never fixing things are broken because they might be broken again in the future is just stupid.
I am willing to take that risk to alleviate the terrible future we are walking towards right now. Then again, I am not paranoid.
Who said nothing would get fixed? Had Netflix felt they were right about Verizon purposefully throttling them, they should have stood their ground. Damn having the government rescue you every friggin time. Be real or be gone. Simple as that.
They did stand their ground… and got throttled to such slow speeds that nobody on specific ISP’s could watch things on them.
Which is why they are trying to go above the ISP’s heads right now, because taking them on head to head can only result in them losing. Because it is perfectly legal for these companies to double dip. And it shouldn’t be.
Sometimes, the only option is for the government to intervene.
And how long did this issue last before the courts? Oh wait…
Just remember: The current U.S. income tax system was originally designed to tax only the wealthiest citizens. See how that worked out for the “now?”
I do. Rich republicans got into it and changed it, now they are taxed the least.
Fancy that.
And just note that little tidbit about the income tax while you cheer for the “now” and Net Neutrality. Partisan or Bi-Partisan, all politicians are hacks and don’t actually care about the people who vote for them.
Well, yeah, obviously. It is a requirement to be in politics that the only person who means anything is yourself.
However, I have no real issues with paying income tax… just the vast difference in the importance of the amounts paid.
I am still all for net neutrality. I would prefer our government in control of my internet than the ISP’s. At least the government won’t charge me more to access specific websites and anything they put into place to firewall stuff can be bypassed if necessary.
And, of course, I prefer to keep 100% of the money I earned. Nonetheless, the gooberment uses their police power to force you to give them money based on a tax code that not one single person knows exactly how many pages it consists of.
And, while I don’t have a problem with Net Neutrality, I am simply cautioning giving the gooberment even more power over something.
But, to each their own. Some feel gooberment should be the only power. Others realize how bad it really is and can get.
Well, you don’t get to keep 100% of what you earn. This is America; you pay taxes and that’s a fact of life. If you don’t like it leave or pay your damn share like evryone else and stop crying like a freaking whiny, spoiled, little, BRAT.
Sure, you can do that. Not sure who you think would build the required infrastructure, or maintain it, without those taxes but… hey, you want all of your money.
I happen to like roads, running water, electricity and the like. I will gladly pay taxes to ensure I get them in good, working order.
You want to live in this country. They want to provide a basic standard of living for all of its citizens. To continue living in this country, you have to contribute to maintaining and building that basic standard. Welcome to the modern world. Don’t like it? There are plenty of other countries that don’t provide that kind of thing.
having your head buried in the sand, only to pop up to vote “more govt control because I want more bandwidth, but don’t charge me more” is extremely ignorant and just plain selfish.
I think his point is just because the government is involved doesn’t automatically make the situation worse. Sometimes the government messes sht up and sometimes it makes things better. Not everyone is Government = Bad, he is looking at it on a situation by situation basis.
Realize we pay more money for less bandwidth than most developed and some developing . telecoms have one of the top 3 profit margins of Any industries in the USA.
I don’t see the dismantling…..except for fanbois think saying “…led me to assume one of two things” is a great comeback. It’s not.
So Cruz is a Republican? So what? What is the frickin’ Oatmea’sl politics?
And it IS Obamacare for the internet. Once taking over, the govt keeps regulating to the point of strangulation. No one will get satisfactory speeds or lower costs.
No, it isn’t.
Not to mention that right now, nobody gets satisfactory speeds or low costs in the first place.
so, you think you get lower prices just because the govt controls it? ha, that’s a laugh.
I did for electricity and my cellphone.
So yeah, I bet I will.
How about your health care? Mine has doubled in the last year and I just got another letter last week saying to expect more increases.
No change. Mine is entirely company provided and paid for.
Mine is company provided as well, but do you not think that will have any affects on you? Do you think your company will continue to eat those costs? It will likely come out of any future raise you may have gotten. That is the problem with progressives, they have absolutely no awareness of the of any cause and effect beyond the initial problem they are “solving.”
It won’t have any effect on me. I have signed paperwork preventing such an action.
Some of us think ahead. But of course, that is the problem with the non-progressive types… always stuck judging others by stereotypes.
My healthcare costs haven’t changed much, and my new Silver plan covers things that my old one didn’t. It’s also nice to know that my insurer can’t just kick me off the plan if, God forbid, I get so badly injured or sick that they no longer feel like doing the one thing I pay them to do.
My electric bill is going up 40% this year. Great job govt!
And mine went down almost 150%.
So yeah, great job.
You clearly have no clue what the Affordable Health Care Act is or how it works.
Here, educate yourself: http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/law/index.html
You clearly have no clue what net neutrality is or how it works.
Here, educate yourself and be entertained in the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU
seriously? a comedy skit? that’s YOUR idea of education? what a joke. you seem to be the one without a clue.
That’s not a comedy skit, it’s Satire. Which imho is a very accessible way to highlight important issues with people who might not engage. In an ideal world people would research important issues to make informed decisions but then in a perfect world corporations wouldn’t pay the government huge amounts of money to make the laws they want to help their business at the expense of consumers.
you don’t seem that intelligent. so what makes you believe it’s all so clear what I think or don’t know?
maybe you should read other things besides a GOVT website….then you might actually know what you are talking about. right now, you don’t.
“And it IS Obamacare for the internet.”
For an alleged “informed voter” how can you be so wrong?
This is good.Net Nutrality needs to be established but not regulated enough where you start to tell me *what* content goes through these “utilities” The government has been known to over-step it’s bounds and abuse power that its given to. And due to their eagerness to “help” its citizens only has me on guard to…why,
Phandroid perpetuates another liberal lie for the sake of a joke. Cruz isn’t against net neutrality. He’s against government overreach. Sorry, but this one article just turned your site into total crap.
Then perhaps he should have phrased his comment differently, hm? Because it looks like he doesn’t like Net Neutrality.
How is this a liberal lie Cruz as usual made a ridiculous, uninformed statement.
Anything rustles a conservative’s jimmies is a “liberal lie” in the fantasy world they inhabit.
what lie? this Cruz’s actually tweet
Cruz is against Obamacare. Cruz analogizes Obamacare with Net Neutrality. Assuming he understands what he wrote, he is certainly against Net Neutrality.. assuming he understands what Net Neutrality is.
please explain how enforcing net neutrality (only necessary because telecoms are constantly trying to game the system) is a. like obamacare and b. government overreach…do you know what the job of the fcc is? do you understand that the airwaves used by telecoms aren’t theirs?
Classifying the internet as a utility, Prevents government over-reach…… the FCC Tried to protect net-neutrality previously, and the ISPs sued and the court told the FCC that it did not have the authority to protect net neutrality unless it was a utility.
Joe, save the liberal BS for home. We come here for tech.
Yes, and the internet obviously doesn’t have anything to do with tech. Aren’t you on the internet at this very moment?
The internet should be a utility. Just like my water used to flush my toilet, except that my water is MORE important than the internet and should be regarded as such!
(jokes.)
Disputing a factually incorrect statement on Net Neutrality is both on topic for this tech site and not partisan in any way. I was a Cruz fan but his tweet was not only wrong but obvious paid shilling.
TIL:
All those seemingly silly polls showing android enthusiasts as conservative and iphone owners as liberal appear to be, unfortunately, true.
I would have assumed the opposite really.
There is a whole lot of lulz in this:
“President Barrack Obama coming out in support of reclassifying the internet service as a utility. This would allow the FCC to enforce more strict regulations to protect net neutrality.”
How do you not understand by now that all government regulations are barriers to entry and used to squeeze out entities that are not beholden to officials and will not succumb to their demands or play their games? They are not there to help you! This is a ploy to fool the ignorantly blissful sheep.
You’re talking to so many low information voters right now, who have no idea what freedom is as long as they can continue living off the working class. You can talk until you’re blue in the face, but they won’t listen.
Low information voters will run this country into the ground. It’s much too late. Too many voters think our govt can do no wrong. We are screwed.
Even the Architect of Obamacare called them “Stupid”, and they have no clue. I guess Stupid is, as Stupid Does!
Moron Ted Cruz.
Poor choice of posts Phandroid! Stick to what you know (Android). I have followed this site since my first Android phone (HTC Hero). This kind of post makes me consider getting my Android news elsewhere. Read the Constitution. Authority not specifically given to the federal government is supposed to be left to the people. If you put the government in charge of the desert they will run out of sand.
you have no idea what you’re talking about…the federal government has the constitutional right to regulate commerce…do you even know what net neutrality is?
http://www.cato.org/blog/net-neutrality-violates-first-fifth-amendments
It in no way violates neither the first amendment, like that retarded blog talks about, nor does it violate the fifth amendment.
For one, that “private property” was not paid for by the telecoms.. it was paid for by tax dollars. Their infrastructure is paid for by the public and it should be public property.
Right so is Obama getting involved?
That’s the problem, their infrastructure should have never been paid for by tax dollars. The market would have provided for the needed infrastructure and there would have been more, smaller companies competing for our business. (lower prices, better service). Instead, the government has created these huge companies that are insensitive to their customers because they are not in an actual free market. More government intervention will not solve the problem, only exacerbate it.
Aye, it never should have been… but it was. And we didn’t get it.
Would the market have provided the needed infrastructure? That is not really a claim you can backup.
The only way to fix the issue at all is government intervention, one way or another. A lack of government intervention does not create a free market in things like this… quite the opposite. It creates monopolies.
Which I am sure the conservative right wing would just love. Since that is the end result of their goals.
And what do we have now? A duopoly? 3 or 4 huge providers?
Once the government is allowed to directly support and regulate the Internet they will also be able to say what goes on on the Internet and what we can say and post here. Just like with our new health care. We were supposed to be able to keep our doctor and the bill was supposed to be as cheap as our wait for it… cell phone and Internet bills!
What ever it is allows the government to take even more control over my life. The government destroys everything, it even looks to divide us up in to race and class, just to control some people.
So, you were proven wrong when you said that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, and your fallback position is “WELL I DON’T LIKE IT!”
The liberals that run these sites can’t separate their politics from any facet of their lives. And I’m supposed to believe the media isn’t in the bag for Obama or Hillary next?
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States”
How does the internet NOT fall within that grant of power?
Phandroid must be pissed about last week’s election to post this kind of garbage. That being said the Oatmeal has no clue on how the Internet is run as not all data is the same. The key words he is missing is ‘paid peering.’ Content providers like Netflix is taking up a lot of bandwidth and its costing ISPs a lot of money to keep up so Netflix should pay. Also, the Oatmeal claims Comcast is buddies with Cruz but in reality they’re very close pals of the Obama and the Democrats, see MSNBC.
This article is more low information hokum. This is little more than propaganda for more govt control.
the only reason netflix takes up a lot of bandwith, is because many ISP customers DEMAND netflix…. so the question is…… Should ISP’s give their customers access to what they want? yes? or no?………. it turns out it might be easier to blackmail netflix than it would be to piss off ISP customers.
And what’s funny about the who Camcast/NBC thing is, that Cohen released a memo derailing Obama’s interest in this Internet debacle. Remember, it was Comcast/Xfinity/NBC that was holding those $50,000 a plate dinners for Obama’s Fund Raising.
OK, so you’ve learned some excellent buzzwords on your favorite politically-biased news show. Awesome! Here’s the truth:
1. Data is all the same, it is a series of bits. No more, no less. You may want certain types of data to have priority, but it does not necessarily have to have it – this is QoS (quality of service); more about that later.
2. “Paid peering” is a system of using an outside provider to server your data on their servers in an attempt to make it more accessible, much like a “proxy” (look it up). Netflix is keeping their content on their own servers; this is NOT paid peering. Net Neutrality is NOT paid peering.
3. Netflix does take up a lot of bandwidth, and they pay their respective ISP a price for a dedicated connection that will serve a certain bit-rate. Netflix content is served over that “pipe”, and can pass a maximum amount of data up to their pipe’s bit rate. If Netflix needs more bandwidth, they will get a bigger “pipe”. Consumers, likewise, pay for an Internet connection from their ISP for a certain bit-rate. Again, consumers are limited to the amount of content they can consume based on their respective bit-rate; if they want more content, they need to purchase a bigger pipe. This, again, is NOT Net Neutrality; this is Networking 101.
4. Back to QoS – THIS is where Net Neutrality comes into play. QoS was designed to give certain TYPES of traffic priority over other traffic, meaning certain traffic is assigned to reach a receiver before other regular traffic – this was intended for things such as VoIP and video/audio streaming as they are more affected bandwidth limitations than say a webpage (you get a pause in your content versus waiting an extra split second for a web page to load). QoS can be implemented, but it is not a necessity. And this is where things went awry. Broadband and cable providers saw that their revenue streams were hurting from people dropping their content services (cable TV, etc) and going to Netflix, so they decided to lower the QoS specifically for Netflix traffic (not all video traffic) because they wanted to degrade the experience (and get their revenue back); otherwise, they were forcing Netflix to pay to have their content QoS brought back to the previous level. Sure, people could have just switched from their ISP’s that were holding Netflix QoS hostage, but the truth is most people don’t have much choice in broadband providers, so they are stuck with the one or two providers available in their market. Netflix knew this, and finally gave up the ransom. THIS is what Net Neutrality is about. Net Neutrality says that ISP’s cannot arbitrarily set QoS based on monetary demands from content providers. It sets ups rules so that practices such as this are not allowed; it is intended to protect the consumer and content providers from monopolistic pricing schemes of those ISPs against Net Neutrality. Those against Net Neutrality are in it for the MONEY GRAB; pure and simple.
That’s your Interwebz lesson for the day; you’re welcome.
Wow, so lengthy of a response and yet still ignorant. You’re debating a person with 15 years experience working in commercial and residential ISP operations. I take it I’m debating with someone that still lives in their mother’s basement. Be sure to say hi to you mom for me. kthxbye
Lol excellent and very professional reply. It shows me just how knowledgeable you are on the subject; if you had anything legitimate to come back with, you would have – no instead you make some ridiculous character attack. It kind of reminds me of the kind of dumb responses Cruz makes – trash talk and no factual information. BTW, I’ve had nearly 15 years in the industry with my current employer, not even close to my entire career. What was that very intelligent ending? Oh yeah, kthxbye
As someone also in the tech industry, what exactly in his post is “incorrect”? You will be graded.
Hmm.
I don’t see what this has to do with Android tech. I’ve been coming here awhile but I won’t anymore. Man, can’t I get away from Politics anywhere?
Then go somewhere else. Last I checked our phones had internet access on them. Therefore this article is interesting to me. Thanks.
Deuces. Use your Internet that you have the privilege of using to check another site without being throttled or shown a thousand ads before viewing contents.
when watching netflix on your android phone. should your carrier decide that that data traffic is less important than other website, and therefore restrict only netflix traffic to your phone because they feel like it? That is the issue of net-neutrality.
Your probably like. “Android!!!!! That has nothing to do with the internet!!!”.
Yeah, what does the basic functioning of the Internet have to do with Android? Oh..wait
Oatmeal apparently never actually read the regulation being debated. It states:
“the Commission is authorized and empowered to determine and prescribe what
will be the just and reasonable charge or the maximum or minimum, or
maximum and minimum, charge or charges to be thereafter observed, and
what classification, regulation, or practice is or will be just, fair,
and reasonable, to be thereafter followed”
Do you believe statements by the President (which haven’t turned out
to be 100% honest) or the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE REGULATION???
The president didn’t lie, he just didn’t tell you the truth. I guess it’ll be along the lines of, “If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet!” We all know how that went the last time.
Seriously people, there are obviously a lot of people upset about this post on phandroid. A lot of which failed to even read what they are commenting on. First of all read everything, then comment, if you don’t understand something then search for it and figure it out. I don’t care which party you are for or against, just know the facts instead of blindly regurgitating some crap you heard before.
If you simply judge this site and say it’s ruined because of one article, then yes it’s probably best you go somewhere else. This is about the internet and considering we are all interested in tech, it’s kind of important! Try and educate yourself and create some intelligent conversation instead of simply trying to bash people. Some people do a good job looking like idiots when they don’t know what they are talking about and bash others just because they heard it from their favorite politician. If you have an opposing view on something then express that view in a way that helps others, instead of just trying to take someone else down.
Agreed. I generally like Cruz, and think the Obama admin is one of the most disastrous things this country has ever faced, but on this issue Obama is right-ish. Acknowledging that the infrastructure of the net is basically a monopoly and protecting consumers accordingly is huge. Ted is just playing contrarian here, and it shows.
That being said, Obama’s history of actually doing what he says is pretty crappy.
Moral:
You can’t just hitch your wagon to a party (or politician) and unquestioningly drink whatever kool aide they give you. Question. Read. Research, and most of all maintain objectivity.
I’m sure there are better ways of obtaining net neutrality. Making the internet a utility sounds like a disaster. My electric bill is going up 40% this year because of govt meddling. More govt is always a bad idea.
Think about it. If a government changes the Internet to a Public Utility, who is then controlling what can be done on that Public Utility? The last thing anyone should want is any government controlling the freest form of expression we have today.
Really should watch this you-tube clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB0Paw-bNSg
We are inundated daily with so much information that our brains are processing information that we are not even aware of. It’s in our games, on our radios, in our TVs and in our movies. This is what we’ve become to government, walking media centers that are capturing and processing the information at will, and without thought.
It’s sad that so many do not see this. I would love to say that this is a conspiracy theory, but it isn’t. Take a few minutes each day to look at and listen to, the information you are being given.
We have our phones, tablets, televisions, and radios. Just spend a few minutes and listen to the information they are giving.
Who decides which bits actually make it to us then? That is the concerns with net-neutrality and who controls the internet. Do you want it to be the ISPs or the Government. This thing has been framed to make us lose no matter which side you pick.
True net-neutrality is not an option on the table….
I come to Phandroid to read about Android. Not politics. I am a HUGE Ted Cruz supporter. I really don’t enjoy coming to this site to read smears about him, I see that everywhere else.
Disputing someone’s factually incorrect statement is not smearing someone. Unless you are claiming that net neutrality is a bad thing. If that is the case, please support your position.
I don’t need to support my political position here on Phandroid. If we were posting on Breitbart, MSNBC, or CNN I would. I come here to read about Android! I don’t come here to read articles that appease the low information voting masses. I get flanked with low information propaganda enough as it is.
So you are implying that talking about something that effects the internet has no place on a technology site?
Affects.
So you are implying that talking about something that has direct consequences for the internet has no place on a technology site?
You didn’t have to correct your sentence. if he could correct it, he clearly understood your question (or point that you were making). What he is doing is focussing the attention on grammer instead of the actual topic at hand. Sort of like the “Straw Man fallacy”. This way he can appear superior in intellect and simply dismiss any logic by commenting with something like, “you are a waste of time” or “you need to educate yourself”. He obviously cannot intellectually discuss this topic.
True. It’s very typical behavior on his part.
Exactly! it is something very common now days.
Objection – relevance.
You don’t have to come to this site or you can simply avoid this particular article, but since you are here declaring you support for Cruz (political) you might as well state your position. Go ahead and educate the sleeping masses or low information voters.
It is possible to support a senator in general, but differ on this 1 opinion Ted Cruz has about net neutrality.
That’s a cop out response.
No, it’s not.
I sort of agree with the ‘no politics’ on a tech blog but honestly you can’t expect to make a statement calling attention to yourself “I support the politician who made this comment” and then not expect folks calling you on it to explain your opinion.
Low information? That pretty much defines Cruz’s statement on net neutrality.
If you’re a Ted Cruz supporter, why not reach out to him (or his office) to explain his position and voice your concerns on net neutrality.
This is a very important topic and many don’t really understand how much it affects all of us.
Ted Cruz is a Senator. He doesn’t have the power to do whatever he wants. Only a small minority of Republicans in Congress share his values. You shouldn’t worry. The majority of Republicans these days are big govt RINO’s. I really wouldn’t worry about Ted Cruz getting his way on this one.
No, but he has the ability to send out stupid tweets and in his role as an opinion leader and sway his accolytes through undying trust. That is his danger as it is with all politicians.
Josh, have you actually read the proposed regulation? It ain’t exactly what you think. It proposes setting minimum and maximum rates and cedes control of broadband, phone networks and local networks to government bureaucrats.
For transparency, no…have you? But ask yourself this…are ISPs ripping us off to get 10 mbps at 50 bucks a month? I for one would like transparency on the rates they charge and why. Some regulation may keep corporations honest. And if they can’t make a profit on their business plan that’s on them.
“Only a small minority of Republicans in Congress share his values.”
You mean being a paid shill for Comcast? I was a Cruz fan but this is so blatantly obvious paid-for shilling and anti-consumer it is sickening.
When Ted Cruz is blatantly (and probably deliberately) wrong about an incredibly important issue that affects the entire tech world, why shouldn’t a tech site talk about it?
Also, why bother pointing out that you’re a huge Cruz supporter? Why should that matter? Are your feelings that important?
What Ted Cruz is saying is bad for Android (and anything remotely Internet related), so yes it’s appropriate here. If you don’t like the topic of the article, skip it, or better yet do as dmm5157 suggested and call Ted Cruz and tell him why he is wrong on this subject.
Even if those smears are true? Open you eyes to the facts, instead of letting your politics be blinders. And look at how much money Ted Cruz took from the ISPs.
If this goes through, we’ll all get the socialized Internet that will be slower than the Internet now. But… It will be fair and everyone will have it. And if you can’t afford it, the Internet and a computer will be provided for you. Once you accept this you will also have to abide by the new Internet posting rules and only go to government approved websites. Welcome to your new government provided interwebz!
Also, all of your pass words, banking information, key strokes, sexting pictures, etc. will be logged. For your convenience of course. (not that they don’t do it already)
I’d say that was a pretty good attempt at sarcasm, but I’m really not sure it was. If it wasn’t, you really need to go do some research, and stop spreading the corporate-paid FUD.
I hope you are not serious, because Europe and Asia has far faster internet speed then American do.
Qualify your post. Why do you believe this? Technically, net neutrality is already in place – it’s what has allowed the Internet to flourish – no preferential treatment. Republicans are the ones who want to tamper with the formula; net neutrality laws should fend off any means to monetize it at other companies’ expense through legislation. Some regulation is good…I would argue we need far more regulation in terms of ISPs and cable companies because I can have either Cincinnati Bell or Time Warner..oooooooooooO! What a choice.
/disclaimer, I despise republicans and democrats alike. Obama’s right on this one and I never thought I’d write those words.
Republicans are the ones that want to kill the internet? I thought it was the ISP monopoly. I thought everyone just wanted to try to implement a solution that would best benefit their wallets, Republican and Democrat alike. Guess I was… Wrong? (Seriously though…)
Do you think Netflix should be able to pay the same price as phandroid to put out their content? Being that Netflix accounts for 1/3 of all North American bandwidth. I mean, I enjoy my Netflix for $9/mo, but that ain’t right.
You can’t pick and choose one example and make it apply across the board. Netflix has agreements in place..they’re paying for internet access also and it’s not cheap.
I’m not cherry picking an example. The Internet flourished because we’ve had a free for all on a new technology. That technology happens to be supported by a back bone of bandwidth which is a finite resource. We are now using up more and more of it with the advent of 4G lte and the like.
And the non-regulated ISPs are doing everything in the power to avoid increasing that backbone’s bandwidth, to their benefit, not yours.
Unlike the airwaves, wired bandwidth is NOT a finite resource. More cables, more routers, more servers gives you more bandwidth. We’re nowhere close to running out of bandwidth. We’re only running out of the monopolies’ willingness to spend money.
Go read a basic economics textbook, the section on monopoly pricing. Monopolies maximize profit by restricting supply (bandwidth), while simultaneously taking step to drive up demand, resulting in higher prices. Look at the history of railroads and the oil industry for some examples.
No and they don’t.
So you want net neutrality so that netflix can pay the same price as phandroid?!
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA4010H20140501?irpc=932
Their CEO is also pushing for it in Europe
Who said anything about Netflix paying the same as Phandroid. Netflix pays Cogent, L3, and others a lot of money to distribute their video, and no one is saying they shouldn’t. The problem is ISPs trying to charge them for bandwidth their customers already paid for. If you want to add Phandroid to the discussion, ISPs like Comcast shouldn’t be able to slow down or block Phandroid to try to extort money from them.
The article you linked doesn’t in any way imply Netflix wants to pay the same as Phandroid… they want to pay the same as other video services, and that’s fair. Comcast shouldn’t be able to play favorites, charging one service exorbinately, charging another far less, and still another absolutely nothing. All traffic should be treated the same, whether it’s coming from Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, or Comcast’s own video services.
“Do you think Netflix should be able to pay the same price as phandroid to put out their content? Being that Netflix accounts for 1/3 of all North American bandwidth”
What are you even talking about? Bandwidth is still payed for and Netflix’s bandwith bills are probably astronomical.
Then why do countries that treat the Internet as a utility (“socialized” internet, as you put it) enjoy faster speeds at a lower cost?
Bandwidth is a finite resource. Bandwidth and speed are not always the same thing. Other countries have upgraded to fiber optic cables. We are just starting. Then there are other things that effect speed like population density.
“Other countries have upgraded to fiber optic cables. We are just starting”
Psst. Nearly every 1st world nation that is killing us in faster, cheaper, better telecom services has some form of net neutrality and most treat the infrastructure as a utility. Coincidence?
like it or not, net neutrality is going to be an issue. this matters to everyone.
I don’t understand half of the comments here. This is a tech site and we should all be in favor of an open internet. The only people who are against net neutrality are the people that stand to make more money from us by threatening to withhold from us what we already have now. This is very much a big business versus the consumer issue. You are either for the consumers or against the consumers in this. And need I remind you that we are all the consumers in this scenario? By being against net neutrality you are against your own interests and are actually in favor of something that actively harms you. It’s called a cognitive dissonance.
When has this ever worked? I remember when the phones were regulated as a utility. No cell phones, clunky corded phones, huge fees for long distance and one company to deal with. The Internet has been a boon of innovation, experimentation and growth BECAUSE it was lightly regulated. Why would you want to put all this into the control of bureaucrats in Washington (and believe me, the “net nuterality” they are talking about basically cedes control of broadband and networks to the government)? Have they improved anything they got their mitts on?
Landline phone service is *still* regulated under Title II. It’s highly reliable, was and is cheap for local calls, and available everywhere. Long distance calls gradually became cheaper and cheaper after Title II was revised in 1982. Maybe you are referring to Title II before it was revised in 1982?
Cell phones became available shortly after they were invented in the 1970s, and were never regulated under Title II.
The first cellphone call was made in St. Louis in 1946. AT&T sat on the technology for 40 years.
The cell phone as you and I know them was invented by Martin Cooper at Motorala in 1973.
And you’re trying to blame that on government regulation? Now I’m laughing at you.
For what it’s worth, that call in 1946 was the first MOBILE telephone call, not the first CELL phone call. Cell technology was first conceived of in 1946, but the technology to implement it did not exist, and the first CELL phone call wasn’t made until the 1970s.
Mobile (radio) phone service, however, was widely available for decades before cell phones. It was, however, very expensive, of limited utility in moving vehicles, and not very convenient. That was a fact of the technology, not the government.
Without market pressures and competition technology lags. AT&T had no real incentive to innovate the consumer model because Government granted them a monopoly and protected them from outside competitors. Look at what happened in the few years following the break-up of the telecom monopoly – New players entered the market, a wave of new technology and innovation occurred, long distance became cheap and phones became untethered and far more functional. Government regulation insulated AT&T and, rather than protect the consumer, harmed them by shutting other innovators out. That’s what will happen to broadband. New and faster ways of accessing the Internet will stop being pursued, speeds will become standardized and government bureaucrats will dictate how much providers can charge. In 20 years we will still be using the same technology, the same speeds and it will feel like we are using the clunky rotary phones from the 70’s
No cell phones was because of government regulation? How can you even listen to yourself? Cell phones didn’t exist until the technology was there, not because of (or lack of) government regulation.
Geez, how can you not laugh at yourself?
For an apparent tech enthusiast, how can all of your posts on tech topics be so egregiously incorrect?
You can’t confuse people with facts when they have their treasured heuristics.
Here is the biggest issue.
The Oatmeal is correct, in that his commentary is how Net Neutrality is supposed to work.
Sen. Cruz is correct, in that the currently offered bills and regulation from DC to create Net Neutrality are overly complicated, and detrimental to a free and open internet, basically establishing an over bloated set of Government run regulations that will not get anyone anywhere.
Context is always a key thing.
Sen. Cruz is correct? If he doesn’t want net neutrality (Regulations disabling providers from essentially taking control) then what does he want? Does he want it to go away, just like he’d like to see Obamacare disperse? Because if that’s where his comparison leads then he certainly is out of his mind (Or just profiting).
What time of government regulation isn’t complicated? The world is a complicated place.
The founding document of this country was 13 pages. Obamacare alone was was 20,000+
1776 was a long time ago my friend. The type writer didn’t even exist. You need a better comparison just like Ted Cruz needs in order for his point of view to come across logically.
Not sure if serious
Of course Title II is based on 19th century regulation of the Railroad industry but, railroads, telephones, Internet…it’s all the same, right?
My car stereo instruction manual is more than 13 pages. Running a country is slightly more complex.
“If he doesn’t want net neutrality (Regulations disabling providers from essentially taking control) then what does he want?”
He doesn’t understand any of it. He is just parroting what Comcast told him to say, for a few million $.
You nailed it Justin. The Oatmeal has a cute explanation but it is simplistic to the max. Once again, here is the actual text of the proposed regulation:
“the Commission is authorized and empowered to determine and prescribe what
will be the just and reasonable charge or the maximum or minimum, or
maximum and minimum, charge or charges to be thereafter observed, and
what classification, regulation, or practice is or will be just, fair,
and reasonable, to be thereafter followed”
That, my friends, is a government takeover of broadband, cell phones and networks.
Apparently you don’t understand the meaning of the word “takeover”.
Apparently you don’t understand the incremental methods used by our government to take over everything in our lives.
Edit:
You were born a slave and you don’t even know it. You are even begging for more of it. Look around you, the government has their hand in every facet of your life.
Phone service has been regulated under Title II since the 1930s, and the government hasn’t ever tried to take over the phone companies. Delivery of electricity, natural gas, and heating oil have always been heavily regulated, and the government hasn’t taken over any of those utilities either. Get your paranoia in check.
Na, they are just listening to everything you say and trying to control your thermostat.
NSA spying has nothing to do with Title II, and I have no idea what you’re talking about with thermostats.
Use your neutral net and Google “government seeks control of your thermostat”
I looked it up. Calfornia wants to be able to control thermostats during *emergencies* to avoid rolling blackouts. Don’t know about you, but if I lived in Calfornia, I’d prefer that to rolling blackouts.
What if you devised a new way of producing clean energy to power and heat homes. Could you set up your business and start selling clean energy to your neighbors? No? Think government wouldn’t sweep in and squash you like a bug? Who, then, is ultimately running the utilities?
Depends on how you’re delivering it. No, you can’t just dig up the whole neighborhood. You can certainly sell your energy through the same markets everybody else does.
The same market as everyone else? That one market you are allowed to sell to? At a predetermined price that is non-negotiable and you don’t think the Government controls the Utilities? They didn’t take over the companies, they just control every facet of how it is allowed to operate.
What are you talking about? I can choose who I buy my electricity from. There are numerous companies to choose from, all with different rates. There’s no predetermined price at all. Natural Gas works the same here. Maybe it’s different in your state, and if you don’t like how your state is handling utilities, you can do something about it.
Wow! I’m a slave because I support a free and open internet, and I don’t mind the government ensuring it stays that way? Seriously? Do you know what slavery even means?
Edit:
If were going to call each other slaves, you are a slave to your corporate overlords at Comcast, Verizon, etc.
I looked around and the government (federal, state or local) does not have its hand in every facet of my life. You must either be living in a country other than the USA or you’re paranoid.
You need to understand, mcl630. To teapublicans, any government role is “socialism.” In addition to not believing in government, they apparently don’t believe in dictionaries, encyclopedias, or history.
Apparently you didn’t read how the FCC going to set minimum and maximum charges and decide what practice is considered fair. It isn’t socialism, it’s authoritarianism. It’s not going to protect you, the consumer, it’s going to narrow your choices.
Few (if any) things get better when the government takes it over. I can’t think of any.
Good thing net neutrality (or reclassifying the Internet as a Title II utility) doesn’t involve the government taking over anything.
Really. Really? Are you serious? Making the Internet a public utility is not allowing the “government” to take over the internet?
Yes. I’m not sure you know what “public utility” means in this context.
Context is one thing. Reality is another entirely.
That is like saying Communism is GREAT because its All about the people and a Republic is bad because of the terrible representatives.
I’d say the US in its republic has come a lot further in its short life than any Socialistic or Communistic form of government ever seen.
Understanding what struggle is going on is paramount. Its not about “I’m for net-neutrality” or “I’m against net-neutrality”, its all about who gets control and how much money they can make.
I for one think what we have right now is pretty bad. The ISPs have decided that they control a major commodity and are looking to profit from it greatly under their Government sponsored Monopolies.
I think the Federal Government will do just what they have with Student Loans, Turn them into cash cows for themselves and cut everyone else out.
I could be wrong… But I’d bet I’m closer to right than wrong.
What are you even talking about? Reclassifying a service as a Title II utility does not shut out the private sector. It simply requires private companies that choose to be in the business of providing a utility to provide a certain level of service.
Not every regulation is a “government takeover” of whatever’s being regulated, unless you think the government also runs the entire service industry because there are, for example, laws that prohibit most private businesses from discriminating against potential customers based on race, sex, religion, and other factors.
The modern economy is complicated. Markets aren’t perfect. The government has a legitimate role to play. Taking this position doesn’t make me a communist or socialist or whatever other extreme ideology you want to try to paint me with.
And why do they want to reclassify the Internet as a utility? To gain more control over it…
Because it *is* a utility.
Aren’t all other utilities paid for based on consumption?
Yes. What are you implying?
To control it, and to tax it. If it gets regulated similar to telephone systems, then what I’m hearing is that they can tax it up to 16%
Please do more research. That’s all I can ask of you. Please read the law they are using. Please understand what will happen.
I enjoy not paying taxes on the internet. I enjoy not paying for mountains of legal hoops the companies have to go through. I enjoy the ability for anyone to go into the business of being an ISP.
All of those things WILL change if they reclassify to fit this:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ104/pdf/PLAW-104publ104.pdf
SJ, you are wrong. You’re letting your anti-government, right-wing political beliefs color your view of reality. Public utilities are things like (wired) phone companies, electric companies, water utilities, and the like. They have nothing to do with, and nothing in common with, programs like student loans.
As for student loans, the federal program provides loans far cheaper than the commercial providers do and did. It’s the commercial lenders who turned it into a cash cow, not the government.
Really, man. Instead of actually looking up any information, you just try to distort my text. Student loans are not public utilities, I never said they were. Also, My views (apparently right-winged, funny since I’ve never been called that…) of the government make no difference to their track record with take overs. (Yes, converting it into an public utility under title II will AT BEST create a “Public-Private Partnership” or “A government enabled monopoly”.)
What will that allow? That’s when facts and conspiracies collide… (Can you say “Internet Kill Switch?”, “Tax the internet?”)
Those two examples are NOT conjecture or propaganda or whatever you want to call it.
It is Actually spelled out in the Telecommunication act.
There is a difference between the concept of “net neutrality” which is a blessing, and a piece of legislation commandeering that term to serve as its title. Orwell loved to emphasize corruption of language to achieve political ends. Take for example the Democratic Republic of Congo. Very little democratic or republican about that country.
It may well be the case that this legislation lives up to the spirit of the phrase on which it is riding, but whenever I hear anything in politics using euphemistic language, my spidey sense goes code red.
You are correct sir.
I think we all agree that the internet shouldn’t be throttled but not on how to get there. The utility idea is painted as a utopian solution. The phandroid article even says “This would allow the FCC to enforce more strict regulations to protect net neutrality.” The last time I checked it was the FCC that tells us exactly what can be said on TV and what times of day. These regulations are for “our protection”. What happens when the FCC decides to protect us from the internet?
“The utility idea is painted as a utopian solution”
Not really “utopian” when pretty much every other 1st world nation on the planet treats the infrastructure as a utility and has better price/quality telecom services and more competition than in the US. #JustSayin
I don’t think The Oatmeal understands (or maybe they are ignoring the fact to make their political statement) how the internet really works and how the so called “fast lanes” are produced. Here’s a fantastic article that explains it. Read it, then you can make a more educated statement about this article. In addition, we should get acquainted with the regulations Net Neutrality wants to impose… The government is pretty good at hiding stuff within the law.
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/
I think the oatmeal understands just fine, and Wired is missing the boat. While increasing competition among ISPs sounds like a great idea, it ain’t going to happen. Not now, not soon, not never.
Regulating the monopoly service providers (as we do with every other monopoly provider) can be done, and can generate real benefits for consumers. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s a whole lot better than doing nothing.
They aren’t a monopoly. Yet. Pass this regulation and they will be. No true monopoly exists without Government protection.
The incumbent ISPs already have virtual monopolies. Local governments don’t just let anybody dig up their neighborhoods.
“They aren’t a monopoly. Yet. Pass this regulation and they will be”
Pretty much everything you post on this topic – the opposite is true. #ReadABook
That article backs up The Oatmeal. CDNs and peering can be denied, and in Netflix’s case it happened.The ISP is still the consumer’s gatekeeper, and more often that not, a regional monopoly.
Cruz understands internet freedom. Those who can afford to pay for freedom can get it. Everyone else? Who cares.
Since when are progressives concerned about freedom? They are trying to give it up or take it away at every turn.
Dumb post bro. NN is pro-consumer. Lack of NN is pro-cronyism, anti-consumer. Case closed.
PS: Take your vapid kool-aid swilling partisan drivel to a politics site where just maybe someone will care.
This regulation will not protect consumers, it will merely narrow our choices. Just like when they heavily regulated the telecom industry.
Pssst. Everything you just said is 100% wrong.
The government that can’t even build a website is going to regulate the internet. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny.