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

a reply to: MOMof3

Is this the first inconsistency you've seen?

Ask yourself, for example, how a party can be for less intrusive government and yet, be in favor of defining and limiting what we can do with our own bodies? How can a party be for fiscal responsibility and yet support continually increasing the war budget? How can anyone be pro-life, but at the same time, pro-death penalty? Small government which only benefits the rich and powerful? Tax breaks which are supposed to trickle down but NEVER do?

a reply to: Gryphon66

They call that hypocracy

The Oatmeal has a very educational cartoon about what the Internet experience could be without Net Neutrality... Here's just a tiny portion about how it's already happening:





It's classic extortion. Yay, extortion!

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Yes extortion...

Absent Net Neutrality what happens to US Start-ups (Small Businesses...aka "Job Creators") who can't afford to pay Comcast et al. the millions in shake-down money?

Why wouldn't Comcast demand a chunk of any promising start-up in exchange for letting internet users access their site?

How is that not legal racketeering for media moguls?

originally posted by: MOMof3
"net neu·tral·i·ty
noun
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites."

I am really confused what the Republicans stand for now. To me this falls right in line with their philosophy. So the Republicans want slow-fast, oppressed info, highest bidder access lanes?

Why not then force HBO to not charge a premium to view the Game of Thrones? We are allowing the government to dictate what a company can charge for their services when the market will dictate their value. Shows like Spartacus and Game of Thrones these premiums carriers had to develop as the premium market was dying. Now, they created a new market to which streamers such as Netflix and Hulu has jumped on and created their own premium markets to view their own productions.

Comcast charging Netflix more because they use a huge portion of their bandwidth makes perfect sense in my humble opinion.

DSL carriers have invested BILLIONS of dollars to be able to compete against huge conglomerates such as Comcast. They did this for the mere fact that they could offer similar speeds (yes, a tad slower) but not charge the exorbitant price for traffic lanes that Comcast charges. Now instead of allowing for a free market to dictate this, we are giving more and more control of the net to the government.

You guys are continuing to give more and more power to the government by listening to their fodder about net neutrality. If anyone doesn't think this has anything do do with redistribution of wealth really have no clue of what the real issues are and the end game.

a reply to: Cabin

Cabin just stop with the rude insults and in all caps too because you are just too smart and Internet savvy for me....don't let that pink show underneath your clothes...

More dangerously, “net neutrality” sets a precedent that would allow the federal government to continue to shape the content and use of the Internet. The Internet has successfully flourished because of the lack of governmental influence and that “hands-off” policy must be allowed to continue in order to help expand the economy. Government-imposed restrictions in China show how one Internet regulation leads to another. - See more at: swineline.org...

Imposing strict net neutrality regulations on the Internet will be picking winners and losers. According to an October 28, 2009 article in The Examiner: In truth, the net neutrality fight is between the telecoms and the giant content providers such as Google and Amazon, which heavily funded Obama’s campaign. The networks in this case want the freedom to change their business model as the Internet changes and profit angles change. The content companies friendly to Obama want regulation to preserve the current business model that maximizes their profits.

Amazon, Google, Expedia, Skype, Flickr, Facebook, eBay, EchoStar and other content providers, which don’t want to pay to use AT&T’s wires, have allied to lobby government to set net neutrality principles into law. It’s comparable to a manufacturer lobbying for price controls on shipping companies.
- See more at: swineline.org...

If you continue to yell at me with CAPS I will no longer converse with you.

a reply to: Bearack

Now instead of allowing for a free market to dictate this, we are giving more and more control of the net to the government. You guys are continuing to give more and more power to the government by listening to their fodder about net neutrality.

Yes, thank you. It gets tiring listening to all the supporters of Big Government here tell me that bigger gov control is going to give them more freedom and faster Internet at a lower cost.
A number of people here complaining about Ted Cruz didn't like him anyway, so this is just another way to discredit him(because he's just not the smart techies they are).
Also for the "more regulations please" crowd, I would love to have them tell me how regulations of the FDA has protected them from aspartame and GMOS and viruses sprayed on lunch meats and crack downs on raw milk.

originally posted by: Bearack

originally posted by: MOMof3
"net neu·tral·i·ty
noun
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites."

I am really confused what the Republicans stand for now. To me this falls right in line with their philosophy. So the Republicans want slow-fast, oppressed info, highest bidder access lanes?

Why not then force HBO to not charge a premium to view the Game of Thrones? We are allowing the government to dictate what a company can charge for their services when the market will dictate their value.

No..you are confusing content providers with access providers.

With HBO, the accurate scenario is subscribers who pay for that content and let's say choose to watch it on the internet via "HBO Go" or other net applications..absent Net Neutrality, your Internet Provider can then force you to watch a 10 minute commercial before accessing that HBO subscription you have paid for or they can slow it down so the episode stutters and freezes (for you and all other Comcast Subscribers) until HBO pays them (The internet Provider) what they demand.

Now HBO has leverage and deep pockets and would be able to work out a deal. Not so much the Twitters, Snapchats, SHutterflys etc etc. when they first were start ups. They will be unable to pay a ransom and get snuffed out quickly before they take off. Hell...With Media Moguls being often partisan (Rupert Murdoch) it's likely that any political websites not leaning in a CEOs direction will not even be offered the ungodly ransom and simply strangled to death.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I think you are purposely not getting it.

That's too bad.

I was looking into net neutrality years ago, and I was never completely convinced one way or the other, but now I know that Soros is pushing it....sorry, I will never trust anything that man is about.
Skeptic's technical explanation was the best argument I've seen here. Other than that I've been lectured on Arpanet, told that I don't know what I'm talking about so I sourced my statement with facts about ICANN and ITU, and told any number of other odd and assorted things by politically biased people here. So forgive me, no one here has convinced me.

It doesn't change the fact that I truly believe that you are purposely not understanding it.

And that's too bad.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: MOMof3

Is this the first inconsistency you've seen?

Ask yourself, for example, how a party can be for less intrusive government and yet, be in favor of defining and limiting what we can do with our own bodies?

And example of the inconsistencies of the left where they say the support religious freedoms but force religious institutions to provide items that goes against their specific religious practices?

MOMof3 How can a party be for fiscal responsibility and yet support continually increasing the war budget?

And yet the other side refuses to even consider fiscal responsibility and continues to kick the proverbial can down the road by merely increasing the size of the entitlement dependency of government. The one true role our government was founded on was the defense of our constitutional liberties both foreign and domestic.

MOMof3How can anyone be pro-life, but at the same time, pro-death penalty?

How can anyone be pro-choice, but at the same time, pro-life against the death penalty?

MOMof3 Small government which only benefits the rich and powerful? Tax breaks which are supposed to trickle down but NEVER do?

Corporations do not pay taxes. You can tax the bajesus out of them but in the end, the consumer pays those taxes. The only way trickle up economics work is in a true communist/Oligarch society where government dictates what a company earns and how much they chose to redistribute back to their entitlement class.

a reply to: Bearack

HBO is providing content which they paid for.

Internet Service Providers are utilizing a resource (the internet) that the public invested in and helped create; they didn't build this.

Platitudes about the imaginary "free market" notwithstanding, the concept of net neutrality actually protects the investment of those smaller companies by preventing unbalanced intervention into the market by a megacorp like Comcast.

What power is being given to the government now that you're upset about? Be specific.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: neo96
I agree with Cruz after seeing Obama care in action.

Then you agree with stupid.

The two have nothing to do with each other.

We already have defacto equal Internet speeds for all content providers. Allowing the FCC to create a tiered Internet in the US destroys the efficiency that exits now.

For Obama to have any say on the Internet and its neutrality is like agreeing Al Gore invented the Internet. I am sure many here actually believe that or would try and spin it that way.

Obama is a criminal thug along with the rest who passed the health care bill into law they didn't read and no American in his right mind would support if they did read it.

"An architect of the federal healthcare law said last year that a "lack of transparency" and the "stupidity of the American voter" helped Congress approve ObamaCare."

You may call Cruiz stupid but I would call it moronic to believe anything Obama says. He is an anti-American 3rd world thinker. Obstruction is the only way to win the next two years.

Mod Note:
The End of Political Baiting and Sniping on ATS

originally posted by: truckdriver42
Obstruction is the only way to win the next two years.

You know, I thought most voters didn't realize that they were voting for a complete shutdown of our government functions. Maybe I was wrong. That's a pretty scary concept when the alternative is wealth and power that is not at all bound to the will of the people.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus


I was looking into net neutrality years ago, and I was never completely convinced one way or the other, but now I know that Soros is pushing it....sorry, I will never trust anything that man is about.

I also read that George Soros is anti-animal abuse...ever since reading that I beat my dog once a day!

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I think you are purposely not getting it.

That's too bad.

100% agree, ThirdEyeofHorus appears to be purposely not getting it ? Not sure why , but that is apparent to me and obviously others here as well.

ThirdEyeofHorus maybe you can clarify the following:

1. Why did the internet become such a huge global hit while net neutrality existed?
2. What is the advantage of not having net neutrality?

originally posted by: truckdriver42

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: neo96
I agree with Cruz after seeing Obama care in action.

Then you agree with stupid.

The two have nothing to do with each other.

We already have defacto equal Internet speeds for all content providers. Allowing the FCC to create a tiered Internet in the US destroys the efficiency that exits now.

For Obozo to have any say on the Internet and its neutrality is like agreeing Al Gore invented the Internet. I am sure many here actually believe that or would try and spin it that way.

I am not sure what that means? Are those the choices for belief? You do know that Obama is the President and must take a position on national issues? Is it your position to simply be opposite of him in all things? Does that seem rational?

Obozo is a criminal thug along with the rest who passed the health care bill into law

Health Care is not Net Neutrality...no offense, but healthy thinking is allowing our brains to make distinctions between things...Rabbits vs. Automobiles.

You may call Cruiz stupid but I would call it moronic to believe anything Obozo says.

(1) Spelled "Cruz"
(2) You need not listen to either Ted Cruz nor Pres. Obama to understand or be informed on the issue?

"Heart disease is bad"...I don't need to listen to Ted Cruz or President Obama to come to my own conclusion...and certainly I am not going to conclude heart disease is GOOD just because President Obama said it was bad?

Not sure where to go with this kind of thinking.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: Realtruth
The internet is doing fine just as it is and has since the inception of it.

So then, it's okay for Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc. to slow down online content depending on where it originated -- either country or US ownership?

So then, it's okay for Comcast (known) and Time Warner (suspected) to inspect ATS packets and alter the content of ATS web pages? (They do it for ads now… what would be next with loosened regulation?)


That doesn't seem fine to me.

Hmmm that's not what I said actually.

My statement was a generalization. Unfortunately large corporations are exploiting consumers, website owners, and people doing business.

And these corporations bank on the fact that people don't have the funds, nor the power to tackle the giants.

Should the government get involved? Not exactly sure. Who is the government and who do they bow down too typically?

I do think that there are many laws in place that haven't even gone to court or have been challenged do to the content changes and packet inspections. You and I are on the same page in this arena. I just don't want a bunch of clowns in DC making a monster bill that no one understands, and leaves way to more harm than good.

They have already screwed up health care beyond recognition, and no one knows what it going on.

Can you imagine what they will do to the internet?

I would say people/web owners and internet users need to band together. Class action suits should be filed in regards to existing laws like the "Wire Tap Act", and have that one updated to meet current internet use.

Again the problem lies within the organization of the small guys. Our government is suppose to represent the masses, but unfortunately this is not the case.

SO thanks for calling me out on my comment, because I always enjoy your bluntness and logic.

a reply to: Bearack

"The left" doesn't force anyone to go against their religious beliefs. The laws of the land require equity in public accommodation.

Empty platitudes about the "other side" are meaningless:

Reagan tripled the modern deficit and subsequent Republican administrations have added more debt than any Democratic President including Obama.

The cost of GW Bush's new policies: $5.07 Billion; of Obama's: $1.44 trillion. (Washington Post)

Corporations are required by law to pay taxes. The concept that they "have to" to pass their taxes along to the consumer is BS, and flies in the face of "the cost of doing business." Why should the public subsidize their operations AND buy their products and services as mandated by the government? Are you familiar with what communism really is?

More unproven platitudes about imaginary situations; no answer to why there is nothing "trickling down" after 30 years.

a reply to: Indigo5

It's a point of faith that even if government regulations would protect the internet, it's still bad.

It's a point of faith that because a certain individual supports a concept, it's therefore questionable.

Do you find the number of folks who operate on blind faith surprising, Indigo?

Sadly, I don't anymore.