It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 30
140
<< 27  28  29   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: thov420
Geography just seems a little to hard for you to fathom? neutral geography, everyone maybe at equa distance from everyone else? I don't think so, sorry but just as auto traffic maybe not neutral neither are networks.




posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: bubbabuddha

And what exactly does geography have to do with this discussion? And actually auto traffic could be considered neutral as well. You pay your road taxes, license fees, etc. and you can hop in your car and drive anywhere you want in a first come first serve basis. Ending net neutrality would be businesses having to pay extra money to allow you to get to them on top of the same taxes and fees they already pay. Ending net neutrality is a mob shakedown of the highest order by the cable companies.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: bubbabuddha
a reply to: thov420
Geography just seems a little to hard for you to fathom? neutral geography, everyone maybe at equa distance from everyone else? I don't think so, sorry but just as auto traffic maybe not neutral neither are networks.


I'm pretty sure you don't know what Net Neutrality is going by this sentence. Net Neutrality can be summed up in one or two sentences. Lets hear you describe what it is in order to prove you actually understand these arguments. I hate to call you out like this but based on your previous few replies I really don't think you understand the argument for or against.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

NO - not like gas, electricity....

Title II is for common carriers - trucking companies, rail lines, mail carriers, etc.

Here is a simple analogy that might help some members understand what this means and by extension what it actually means for the internet.

We'll use FedEx as an example of a common carrier. You as the customer can choose your level of service, ground, overnight etc. Just as you might pay for your internet access. The carrier has to treat all packages using the same service the same. It cannot charge you based on the content of that package - only by the service (and weight) that you, the customer, paid.

You can mail 16 oz of diamonds for the same rate as 16 oz of coal.

We individuals and our personal internet access is not at issue. The issue is that 'content providers' (such as ATS) would be charged a premium to ensure that their content gets delivered faster and more reliability to the end user (you and me). It would effect the 'reception' of content but not your personal access capacity (which you do realize is an idealized maximum - right??).

Yes Utilities operate under somewhat similar rules but do not fall under Title II of the Telecommuications Act (I think that were it is - but common carrier designation is older).

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has good information on this subject.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
On Sunday, Al Frankin explained net neutrality to Ted Cruz, saying it's not like Obamacare because Obamacare was a new law and made many changes to the existing system. Net neutrality, on the other hand, is a reclassification of the internet to keep it as it is...

So, Monday, realizing the stupidity of his original statement, Cruz's communication director made a statement explaining what Cruz meant with his stupid Obamacare reference...



In his remarks in Austin on Friday, Senator Cruz criticized net neutrality for the precise reason it would keep the Internet 'the same' ... Allowing the government to regulate the Internet as a public utility would freeze innovation and prevent progress.


Yes, Ted. The internet innovation has been frozen and progress is at a standstill...



It's radical and extreme to put the future of the Internet in the hands of a 5-member FCC panel influenced by lobbyists and politicians and unaccountable to regular, working Americans.


"Radical and extreme" to keep things the way they are and have been working smoothly for 50 years?

Maybe he really IS that stupid!

Source
edit on 11/18/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Maybe he really IS that stupid!


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I don't think so. I think he's counting on most of the rest of us to be that stupid.

Now Pelosi, she's that stupid. Which I mention only to show I have no particular regard for either 'side' in DC.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Just curious boss, where's your rant about the Internet tax that's about to get rammed down our throats like obamacare was? I'm surprised that I haven't heard a peep about it here.

Why are you more concerned with something Ted Cruz said when there's nothing he or even Obama can do about the FCC's decision?


edit on 20-11-2014 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
140
<< 27  28  29   >>

log in

join