Epic Stupid: Ted Cruz - "Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet"

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
The ONLY reason Ted Cruz uttered this ignorance is that Obama came out with his support for net neutrality and Ted knows his Tea Partiers will LOVE him for being against Obama, NO MATTER WHAT.

Not the ONLY reason...

Politico reports that, through varied means, Comcast has [paid] to 32 of the 39 members of the House Judiciary Committee, which will likely have a hand in helping regulators determine whether or not the merger gets approved.

Additionally, 15 of the 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have received help from the Comcast coffers, including Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, Texas’s Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.

consumerist.com...

There’s little that tends to unite a leading liberal like Dick Durbin and a conservative firebrand like Ted Cruz.

But when the two senators join their colleagues for a hearing this month on Comcast’s $45 billion bid for Time Warner Cable, many of them will have something in common — they’ve each collected Comcast cash.

www.politico.com...

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

We're screwed

Yes, but this is well beyond conservative v's democrat, imo

If the propaganda behemoth manage to manipulate and convince the ignorant majority of this "insane idea of net neutrality" and the Patriot Act part II (internet for Patriots aka internet for dummies) is implemented AND then they ratify the Transpacific Partnership - then we are ALL well and truly screwed, internet and beyond.

We're being hit from all sides - the internet is the last battleground for freedom from oppression, freedom of expression, both now and in the future and both red and blue are in on the deal - always have been.

Again, my opinion.

That's close, in some ways makes this thread itself a bit of distraction, broadband speed is a joke if the NSA/NCTC want to target, and they do, and THEY are running the show, full stop.

a reply to: beezzer

I think it's good you're asking questions and looking into it!

'Government regulation' should always make our ears perk up with caution if we're smart. lol

Just that in this case, most people agree it is needed. But by all means, research it and let me know if you find anything of note that is not widely known.

I can see the point Cruz is trying to make- I'm just not in agreement with him this time. But I, too, took a minute to look up some stuff before posting an opinion. Let's hope they don't try to sneak in a bunch of unnecessary, controlling muck into it.

The real headline should read "Obama Pushes Net Neutrality as a Last Hurrah of Power before GOP Takes the Senate"
And we thought it was going to be immigration reform....
No, really he leans communist and it doesn't surprise me that it's now in the headlines that he is pushing for it.
I have never seen the President for anything that I wasn't against. After all, didn't he try to give the Internet away to the ITU? Killswitch anyone? I see this as part of the move toward giving away our sovereign to world government. After all, it's more government bureaucracy and control which means less freedom.

If Net Neutrality comes to pass it will be written in a way that will make it harder for new companies to offer Internet services, which means we’ll be even more beholden to the large telecoms than before. If the telecoms are forced to compete in a truly free market, Comcast and Time Warner won’t exist 10 years from now. They’ll be replaced by options that give us better service at a lower price. Some of these new options may depend on being able to take advantage of the very freedom to charge more for certain types of Internet traffic that Net Neutrality seeks to eliminate.

Free speech cannot exist without privacy, and the U.S. government has been shown in no uncertain terms to be unworthy of guarding the privacy of its citizens. Only the latest revelation of many, Glenn Greenwald’s new book No Place To Hide reveals that the U.S. government tampers with Internet routers during the manufacturing process to aid it’s spying programs. Is this the organization we trust to take even more control of the Internet? After all, under Net Neutrality the government won’t just trust the telecoms to police themselves. There will need to be ways for the government to verify, at a technical level, whether the telecoms are treating data as they should. Don’t be surprised if that means the government needs to be able to install its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic.

www.forbes.com...

Perhaps instead of screeching at Ted Cruz that he's not very technical, we can see that he is interested in protecting free speech, not regulating it.

I'm holding my nose posting Huffpo...but here goes

Frankly, these explanations are hooey. For one, broadband providers -- cable, telco, wireless, and other companies who have paid tens of billions for the privilege of competing for your allegiance -- know that their job is to bring you everything the Internet offers. Would you subscribe to an ISP that gave you Fox News but not Olbermann, or gave iTunes an exclusive on music, or only allowed Warner Brothers movies on their system? It's a ridiculous proposition (and one that could be addressed with anti-trust law if I'm entirely wrong, which I'm not).

And, second, the Internet isn't "neutral" right now! Big websites cache their content in server farms around the world, like squirrels burying nuts for the winter. That way, they reach you faster than the "little guy," even though the net is allegedly "neutral." But this takes the kind of resources only the Big Websites can generate. Want proof? Well, who's funding the "neutrality" push to protect the "little guy?" It's the Big Websites themselves!

When you get down to it, "neutrality" isn't about "open" versus "closed" Internet or the "big guy" versus the "little guy." It's about one bunch of Big Businesses -- Google/YouTube, Netflix, and the other Big Websites, who want to travel the Internet at no cost (even if their videos and other content hog bandwidth) and the infrastructure providers, who are looking for ways to cover the costs of the growing demand for bandwidth. YouTube and Netflix now account for almost half the system's use at peak periods! Not only does video hog bandwidth, it has to be managed much more carefully if consumers are going to enjoy watching Internet video as much as they like reading emails that arrive in a burst.

I see the U.S. government as a dangerous tyrant, influenced by large corporate interests, seeking to control everyone and everything. Perhaps these diverging perspectives on the nature of the U.S. government are what account for a majority of the debate between proponents and opponents of Net Neutrality. If I believed the U.S. government was omniscient, had only good intentions, and that those intentions would never change, I would be in favor of Net Neutrality and more. But it wasn’t all that long ago that FDR was locking up U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps or Woodrow Wilson was outlawing political dissent.

www.huffingtonpost.com...
yep kids PrezO is protecting his good friend Google from Comcast...

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Jesus Christ.

As a Marxist, let me tell you, Obama isn't even a Socialist, let alone a Communist.

Can't wait for the boomers to die out and take their McCarthyisms with them.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
The real headline should read "Obama Pushes Net Neutrality as a Last Hurrah of Power before GOP Takes the Senate"
And we thought it was going to be immigration reform....

Some help there, we're all talking shiite while we don't know all that the intelligence services are doing..illegally.

It’s called conflation.

To combine two different subjects with different meanings and nuances in order to basically distort…Demagogues do it all the time

Cruz is a crud demagogue among other sinister characteristics...

He obviously is a puppet for the people who want to control the internet therefore he wants to conflate one thing with another: Net neutrality with big government and Obama in order to besmirch it in people’s minds

One thing has nothing to do with the other

In fact this is an example of what government should be doing: protecting the rights of the many over the few.

Here Cruz is trying to juxtapose anti-government feelings with the concept of Net-Neutrality thereby getting his morons who don’t ever look beyond the superficial to automatically hate the concept because Cruz conflates it with Obama and government

Pure distortion

BUT IT WILL WORK

Because many Americans just listen to the superficial propaganda of idiots like Cruz and accept it

How do you think a guy like that gets elected?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I agree - this looks like a Progressive (i.e. Fascist) power grab over the last realm of truly free speech. Of course it needs a disguise, so they give it the misnomer 'net neutrality' and pitch it as a defense against greedy corporations by our one and only savior: the Federal government.

Nevermind what happens later! We have to save the internet from a future threat, now!

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Jesus Christ.

As a Marxist, let me tell you, Obama isn't even a Socialist, let alone a Communist.

Can't wait for the boomers to die out and take their McCarthyisms with them.

Now't to do with boomers man, get it right.

Why would anyone think that the very one who has heralded a new sign of Nanny Statism and Big Government is going to make and keep the Internet free and Open?

It's just a question.

"I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online," Obama said in a statement.

No, of course because he doesn't want private business as a natural competitive gatekeeper, he wants a government monopoly as gatekeeper.

www.washingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Jesus Christ.

As a Marxist, let me tell you, Obama isn't even a Socialist, let alone a Communist.

Can't wait for the boomers to die out and take their McCarthyisms with them.

Well, thank you very much for coming out of the closet...

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Well, thank you very much for coming out of the closet...

Grow up. Marxism isn't a dirty word.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
And your hope is that ATS costs will go down if the government steps in. We get that.

No.

1) The costs would go up.

2) If we can't pay the costs, we'd go out of business.

Net Neutrality

If you like your provider, you can keep your provider.

If you like your download speed, you can keep your download speed.

And we guarantee that cost off access will be reduced by at least $50/household/month with our basic net neutrality regulations.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

Epic, epic stupid. He just swung a great big giant stupid stick (supplied by his corporate masters) in the general direction of independent websites like ATS.

And then hit himself with it!

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Well, thank you very much for coming out of the closet...

Grow up. Marxism isn't a dirty word.

No, but Marxists think capitalism is a dirty word.

a reply to: smurfy

Yeah but it's a bit mean to hope for half of all Americans to die right now!

Hoo boy!!!

Here we go! Should be an interesting couple of hours to watch "the new blood" argue the same points over and over again rather than reading the thread and realizing what they said has been said.

I Love discourse. But there is a time when the flies be flies and the # be #.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Well, thank you very much for coming out of the closet...

Grow up. Marxism isn't a dirty word.

No, but Marxists think capitalism is a dirty word.

As a Marxist, let me tell you, Capitalism isn't the dirty word. Corporatism is.

I think everyone is missing the big picture here.

It all comes down to who controls the internet. Government or Corporations. But who owns our Government??? Corporations!!

Once again it's all theater for us to argue about but in the end we lose like always because there is no win either way. We either hand over control to the Corporations, which is bad or to the Government which is also bad because they are now the puppet arm of the Corporations anyway.

Obama appointed the former lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry to head the FCC. Why do you think he did that???

The only way to win is for everyone to leave the internet alone as it has been. Not Controlled.

How is it that we always lose?? Because they control both sides of the argument. Either way they win in the end it just takes different paths to get there. The game is rigged and has been for a long time.

Everyone in office has been paid well for their services of selling out the people. We will lose this battle just like the others because everyone actually still believes there is a difference between Government and Corporate Power. There isn't. The power just gets appointed to either the left hand or the right hand but both hands are still connected to the same body.

My favorite Canadian Author strikes again.

What he does not seem to realize is....

If a Patriot wanted a good honest coloring book for their Aryan children, Rafael's book may not come up on Amazon (even though it's on clearance) as Barnes and Noble for example may have paid big wads of cash to the Overlords of the Internet to push traffic to their site.

And even though this may, in fact, save their poor Children years of therapy. It is still not a good thing.