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

originally posted by: Willtell
Comcast spreads cash wide on Capitol Hill

Democracy in action right there.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

who said anything about limiting things to one continent.

Sure the Internet is world wide. When did I say it wasn't?

In recent years U.S. policy makers have pushed back against calls from nations including China and Russia for the U.N. and ITU to have a greater role in overseeing the structure of the Web. U.S. officials have previously argued that such an arrangement would lead to the repression of free speech and the Balkanization of the Internet.

online.wsj.com...

Regulation is always a dirty word to some folks.

Like the meat-packing industry, pharmaceutical industry, and those companies that would like to dump their toxic waste, anywhere, anytime they like. (Love Canal, what a happy-sounding place, huh?)

Because, hey, you can always depend on a pure-profit-driven free market to be concerned about your health, your family's health and your communities' health over more money in their pocket, right?

Right?

/facepalm

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Regulation is always a dirty word to some folks.

Light regulation is a good thing but there's a balancing act involved. This isn't even regulation though, it's simply saying that a customer gets what they pay for. If this were a non digital product so that people better understood it would we even be having this debate? What if your grocery store (that was a monopoly for the surrounding 200 miles) said that you had to wait in line for an hour and a half before they would actually ring up your groceries and let you buy them unless you were willing to pay an extra $50 for your time? People would never stand for it.

He was just saying that Net Neutrality would end up like Obamacare, why is that stupid? Obamacare was all roses and sunshine till you read the law, and I agree with him, this with all likelyhood will go down the same way.

a reply to: Aazadan

Aazadan, I understand completely what you mean. I am a strong believer and supporter of true Net Neutrality.

My point is, do you see the arguments brought against the idea, by the likes of Cruz and Breitbart and those that parrot what they say here?

It's a matter of evil government regulation, to these folks, a variation of "keep yer guvment hands off'n my internet."

Yes, regulation can be strangling, but what is the opposite?

Contaminated meat in that grocery store?

Medicines on the shelf that not only don't do what they claim to but are actually dangerous?

Companies that are allowed to dump their waste in your community if that's the least expensive place?

Yes, it's a balancing act, but not to extremists.

With them it's all or nothing.

I don't see why so many people are in shock of some of the comments here. Look who the ones are arguing against this. A Republican said it was bad, so they fall right in line behind him. These same posters are starting threads saying how great it is that the GOP is back in control, NOW all of a sudden you can't trust them? Why get so happy about people winning that you don't trust?

Or you get the self proclaimed intelligent people acting like this is a concept that was just started yesterday and they have no knowledge of it, and also lack the ability to look it up on Google.

I don't visit ATS anywhere near as often as these posters, but I do enjoy the site. Simply put, if Cruz and the Republicans get their way, I won't have this site to visit anymore.

So let me get this straight.

You guys dislike the Patriot Act, and are for Net-Neutrality.

Do not be thrown off by the word "neutrality", this is just another long reach by the government. If the government controls the media, then NN would provide a key stepping stone to controlling the internet, and I'm sure I don't have to remind you all of what happens in places like China. Say goodbye to independent news sources.

Go ahead and fall for the former telecom lobbyist turned Obama appointed FCC head, but there are other ways of handling this issue without handing over the keys to the castle.

originally posted by: mymymy

I don't visit ATS anywhere near as often as these posters, but I do enjoy the site. Simply put, if Cruz and the Republicans get their way, I won't have this site to visit anymore.

There is only one party that throughout history has tried to stifle free speech, control the airwaves, and whine about online news. And it doesn't start with an R.

a reply to: IntroduceALittleIrony

Well, it appears history is about to change

a reply to: IntroduceALittleIrony

It started with EVERY. SINGLE. LETTER.

Because every government wants to rule. NO exceptions!

a reply to: IntroduceALittleIrony

You just claimed that

1. Democrats have tried to stifle free speech.

2. Democrats have tried to control the airwaves

3. Democrats have whined about online news.


Last first. Everybody whines about online news and the media. Fox gets brought up, MSNBC is not far behind.

"Control the airwaves" ... I'm sure here you're talking about the FCC and regulations, right?

The FCC's mission, specified in Section One of the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151) is to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges." The Act furthermore provides that the FCC was created "for the purpose of the national defense" and "for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications."

Source - Wiki

Yep, the Danged Democrats want the "airwaves" to be available to everyone and be used in a non-discriminatory fashion.

They're always taking away our fun. *stomp*

Number 1 is yours to explain. How do Democrats try to stifle Free Speech?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Regulation is always a dirty word to some folks.

Like the meat-packing industry, pharmaceutical industry, and those companies that would like to dump their toxic waste, anywhere, anytime they like. (Love Canal, what a happy-sounding place, huh?)

Because, hey, you can always depend on a pure-profit-driven free market to be concerned about your health, your family's health and your communities' health over more money in their pocket, right?

Right?

/facepalm

Hey they already dump toxic waste into our system it's called sodium fluoride and that's just our water.

Regulation only means that certain companies and the government will profit more than others.

The internet is doing fine just as it is and has since the inception of it.


BTW your analogies make absolutely no logical sense. "Meat packing industry, Pharmaceuticals" The internet is not something we ingest, nor sustains life.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The FCC opened the issue up for public commentary. Over 800,000 responses were received from the public, 99% supported classifying Internet Service Providers as common carriers, the first step to ensuring equal speeds for all content providers online.

The US has the worst Internet speed-per-dollar of industrial nations. Creating a tiered Internet will make it much worse, and stifle innovation. Not to mention, put independent sites like ATS on the speed back-burner.

I agree with this 100%. I even like Ted Cruz but he is dead wrong on this issue and I believe it is because he is engaging in the worst kind of partisan rhetoric and politics, the kind that in the end hurts the citizens. I also wonder if he understands net neutrality and the key issues well enough to make such a bold statement.

Correct me if I am wrong, but won't limiting the internet just develop more of a black market, so to speak?

I mean just look at what any other form of control or prohibition does. It just leads to a black market mentality. I mean the internet as it is already has the Deep Net where apparently it is 4000-5000 times larger than anything you will get Google search to pull for you off the Surface Net. At something like 8PB of size and growing exponentially...how do they think they can control this? Hackers will always hack.

Just another "war on something"?

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
Correct me if I am wrong, but won't limiting the internet just develop more of a black market, so to speak?

No one's talking about limiting the Internet -- unless of course you support the FCC's alternative to net neutrality that will create slow lanes for most websites.

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.

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.

I was thinking about this last night and came to the conclusion that Ted Cruz isn't stupid at all... In fact, many refer to him as "brilliant, articulate, the smartest guy in the room"... Is that true? I think it could be. Maybe not, but consider my point of view here.

Ted Cruz: The Smartest Guy in the Room?

Ted Cruz says, “In both law and politics, I think the essential battle is the meta-battle of framing the narrative.” From his reading of Sun Tzu he has learned that a battle is won by “choosing the terrain on which it will be fought.”

And I think that's exactly what he's doing here. His main goal is to be Mr. Anti-Obama. His "party" LOVES that about him and he knows it's his best "terrain". He also wants to frame the narrative that since he is the Anti-Obama, he is the answer to all the problems that Obama has supposedly caused in his 6 years.

No, he's not stupid at all. When Obama came out with his position on Net Neutrality, Cruz immediately considered how he could frame the story to make it look like he's anti-Obama, anti-government and FOR the people. To accomplish this, he sold 3 points:

1. I disagree with Obama
2. Net Neutrality is a "government takeover" of the Internet
3. Net Neutrality takes power away from the people and gives it to the government

These three points stick like glue to his constituents and he becomes their savior and hero, even though what he says isn't true. He KNOWS it isn't true. He KNOWS what Net Neutrality is (he ISN'T stupid) and how it would affect the Internet freedom of his constituents, but he doesn't care. As long as his "frame" is intact (and it is - we can tell by some of the responses here) he continues to build his base and manipulate his constituents into loving him even more... in preparation for 2016, of course.

Yeah, he wants to run for president. And there's about 33% of the people who will gladly vote for him and the "protection" that he promises. No, I'm afraid Ted Cruz isn't stupid. But I cannot speak for those who buy his manipulation, hook line and sinker...

I WANT Ted to run for president and I want him to be the candidate. Then we'll see how many people in this country REALLY want him to try to run it. I might even give a third party TRUE Libertarian a chance!

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The greatest trick a politician has ever played is convincing people he is stupid.

originally posted by: mymymy
a reply to: IntroduceALittleIrony

Well, it appears history is about to change

Forgive he, he knows not wot he says.