Does Ted Cruz not understand Net Neutrality?

[YALE]

And the government will make it all fair and right and just. They do after all have our, we the people's, best interest at heart!

What's the alternative? A choked internet you have to sell a kidney to afford?

[exlude]

And the government will make it all fair and right and just. They do after all have our, we the people's, best interest at heart!

I realize that not much thought went into this post, but I have to ask:

Do you expect Comcast/TW to get better as they get more powerful and we continue to allow them more unfair business practices? Some people around here pretend like a monopoly is looking out for you.

[likeitfast55]

The FCC is doing its job now, and news flash , they have been for a while. Why in hell do you think "they" are pushing this? The big ISP's are a major contributor to the GOP. Now that they are in majority------------impose their will.

If Comcast does not want you streaming oh lets say "reddit? Guess what, price goes up and the throttling begins. Netflix, you like that, well if your ISP doesn't, yep you guessed it---------higher price and slower service.

Get the picture? This is why I am for net neutrality. It's the first thing out of Obama's mouth that has made sense.........

[boost addict]

The FCC is doing its job now, and news flash , they have been for a while. Why in hell do you think "they" are pushing this? The big ISP's are a major contributor to the GOP. Now that they are in majority------------impose their will.

If Comcast does not want you streaming oh lets say "reddit? Guess what, price goes up and the throttling begins. Netflix, you like that, well if your ISP doesn't, yep you guessed it---------higher price and slower service.

Get the picture? This is why I am for net neutrality. It's the first thing out of Obama's mouth that has made sense.........

I agree that the way you've been sold net neutrality it looks like a good thing. But back out of the talking points they've been showing you and let's think big picture.

We thought the patriot act was a good thing at first too. Now they're collecting our personal data, spying on reporters, and frisking my 9 year old daughter at airports. Yes....that happened. It was awful.

Why would we, especially now in light of Grubers admissions on on lying about obamacare, give this administration the right to pass another major piece of regulatory legislation. This is the same administration that used the IRS against conservatives, that lied about Benghazi, and my gosh couldn't even get a damn website up and running with hundreds of millions of dollars.

I don't care how good the "idea" of net neutrality is....this administration IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED with implementing it.

[YALE]

I agree that the way you've been sold net neutrality it looks like a good thing. But back out of the talking points they've been showing you and let's think big picture.

We thought the patriot act was a good thing at first too. Now they're collecting our personal data, spying on reporters, and frisking my 9 year old daughter at airports. Yes....that happened. It was awful.

Why would we, especially now in light of Grubers admissions on on lying about obamacare, give this administration the right to pass another major piece of regulatory legislation. This is the same administration that used the IRS against conservatives, that lied about Benghazi, and my gosh couldn't even get a damn website up and running with hundreds of millions of dollars.

I don't care how good the "idea" of net neutrality is....this administration IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED with implementing it.

The executive branch doesn't pass laws. The president can issue executive orders, but those aren't the same thing. Only the legislature can pass laws. Now, the FCC requires no new powers to regulate the internet. The president telling them to focus on net neutrality is akin to the captain of a ship telling a helmsman to change a ship's course. Nothing new needs to happen. As for, "freedom on the internet," or whatever it is you think you have now, again, you don't have that. How do you think targeted ads work?

[boost addict]

The executive branch doesn't pass laws. The president can issue executive orders, but those aren't the same thing. Only the legislature can pass laws. Now, the FCC requires no new powers to regulate the internet. The president telling them to focus on net neutrality is akin to the captain of a ship telling a helmsman to change a ship's course. Nothing new needs to happen. As for, "freedom on the internet," or whatever it is you think you have now, again, you don't have that. How do you think targeted ads work?

I know who makes laws and who enforces them. The problem is this president doesn't care. i.e. How many times has obamacare changed on just a whim of Obama without congress changing it?

You're focusing in on one hand of this administration. Pay attention to what the other hand is doing.

Ask yourself...why is THIS president taking THIS action right NOW?

[matts5.0]

I know who makes laws and who enforces them. The problem is this president doesn't care. i.e. How many times has obamacare changed on just a whim of Obama without congress changing it?

You're focusing in on one hand of this administration. Pay attention to what the other hand is doing.

Ask yourself...why is THIS president taking THIS action right NOW?

Duh, because the big bad corporations are evil, and government is good and wants to help!

[matts5.0]

Honestly I'd like to read the bill and see what all it entails. If it's simplely legislation that states certain actions by telecom and Internet providers are illegal and sets out guidelines, and that's it. Im all for it. If it gives the government any oversight or regulatory power above that then im all against it.

[John -- '02 HAWK]

Honestly I'd like to read the bill and see what all it entails. If it's simplely legislation that states certain actions by telecom and Internet providers are illegal and sets out guidelines, and that's it. Im all for it. If it gives the government any oversight or regulatory power above that then im all against it.

I think thats why they are trying to call it a utility. The only thing I hope is that doesnt mean it can be subsidized and handed out like obama phones

[matts5.0]

I think thats why they are trying to call it a utility. The only thing I hope is that doesnt mean it can be subsidized and handed out like obama phones

Yeah, if governments in control of it, double extra fuck that shit times 7ty..

[YALE]

Honestly I'd like to read the bill and see what all it entails. If it's simplely legislation that states certain actions by telecom and Internet providers are illegal and sets out guidelines, and that's it. Im all for it. If it gives the government any oversight or regulatory power above that then im all against it.

There is no bill. No bill is necessary. They don't even need an executive order.

[YALE]

I think thats why they are trying to call it a utility. The only thing I hope is that doesnt mean it can be subsidized and handed out like obama phones

The industry is already heavily subsidized. A ton of the costs of building these networks was underwritten AS a public utility. We have already paid for it. There is no new cost. This is just an attempt to get us our dollar's worth.

For those of you concerned about new legislation and government interference, the legislature would have to be the body of government to create a new law on this matter. That's what you should be concerned about.

[Forever_frost]

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

so then your arguing about allowing the excessive commercialization and limiting of a communication system because its the right thing to do per your view of constitutional law?

[CexMashean]

It blows my mind that people don't support net neutrality. Of course, it's always the ones who lightly use it that have that viewpoint.

[YALE]

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Irrelevant quote is irrelevant. You might as well have quoted a Klingon proverb. Also, define irony. You're using a quote maligning critics of government interference to complain about imaginary government interference. You have gone full potato.

EDIT: I guess you're also calling anyone who's an advocate of net neutrality a socialist? That's a fine ad hominem attack, but it's also both false and irrelevant. Constitution on, constitutionator.