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

a reply to: teamcommander

The part I find most depressing is the fact most politicians think the public is that stupid.

More depressing is that the public IS that stupid.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

OK...First thing to acknowledge is that idiot corporate pawns like Ted Cruz feel emboldened to make such claims, because Net Neutrality, whilst INSANELY IMPORTANT TO EVERYONE'S LIVES is also a topic that the public is unusually uneducated about and finds painfully boring. It could be argued that is by design..

John Oliver to the rescue:

NET NEUTRALITY

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Really ?

'The internet should not operate at the speed of government'.

Is stupid ?

Because that is what I was agreeing with.

a reply to: neo96

Nice job. I enjoyed your utterly irrelevant rant about Obamacare, a Republican health care plan, in a thread that has nothing to do with it. No wonder you like Cruz. You have a lot in common.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

I really hope you've got your good knee pads on. You're going to need them, often.

Everyone is going to them if government gets more involved with the net.

They don't solve problems.

They create more of them with their 'solutions'.

Alright.

We have something called "Net Neutrality".

Would anyone care to explain it? Or are you all just going with the name?

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: neo96

Nice job. I enjoyed your utterly irrelevant rant about Obamacare, a Republican health care plan, in a thread that has nothing to do with it. No wonder you like Cruz. You have a lot in common.

The ACA is a prime example of government authoritarianism as 'irrelevant'.

'Republican' healthcare plan' eh?

Saying the other side is too stupid to come up with their own laws. They have to plagerize someone else's ?

'Like Cruz'.

One more time. I said I agreed with him.

The Internet should not work at the speed of government.

originally posted by: neo96
'The internet should not operate at the speed of government'.
Because that is what I was agreeing with.

It's an insanely stupid strawman misnomer at best -- an utterly ignorant statement designed to obfuscate the issue.

Yes. You agree with ignorance.

I am admittedly ignorant on this issue.

Anyone care to suggest some no BS material to read ?

Regulation of the internet as a utility will overturn the recent decision against net neutrality.

I was pro Ted Cruz until I heard that his wife is a VP for Goldman Sachs. Bankster backed Libertarian. That's how a junior congressmen gets so much press. I guess he's been told that throttling the internet, up charging websites that provide content and compete with cable, and charging for speed and time on the internet is a new and glorious opportunity for market makers. They probably want to resurrect the ENRON internet scam.

Make money and destroy freedom of speech on the internet, sounds like a win win for TPTB.

Now I may be libertarian, but I'm no anarchist. I support our constitutional democracy. Its the governments role to respect, to promote, and to protect our freedoms. And its the government responsibility to protect the market system, they are not supposed to be creating legislative "Ma Bell" style monopolies.

I am becoming highly suspicious of any high profile person claiming to be libertarian. They seem to confuse pro market with pro business, these are incompatible. They seem to be backed by the same puppeteers. You can almost hear the barkers call to the voters... "come and get your puppets, we got them in all sizes and flavors, republicon, neo con, democrap, and now in liberty loving libertarians." Their idea is to get your vote and to deflect any and all notions of real reform of the system, a system that has been twisted beyond all recognition from its constitutional origins.

a reply to: neo96

None of that makes any sense at all. It reads like you're parroting ignorant soundbites in a cobbled up goop of nonsense.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
I am admittedly ignorant on this issue.

Anyone care to suggest some no BS material to read ?

Apparently we should just love it because it has the words Net and Neutrality in the title.

If the Internet ran at the speed of government then we would only need a dial up connection.

a reply to: whyamIhere

ThisIMO would be a good place to start. More info at the 153 footnotes and stack of related external links.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: neo96
'The internet should not operate at the speed of government'.
Because that is what I was agreeing with.

It's an insanely stupid strawman misnomer at best -- an utterly ignorant statement designed to obfuscate the issue.

Yes. You agree with ignorance.

I disagree.

The same argument was used in the creation of the ACA.

Healthcare wasn't fair. So the government created an asinine law to make it 'fair'.

The internet isn't 'fair'. So some want government to get involved to make it 'fair'.

In my opinion that isn't a strawman.

That's stating the facts when government gets involved with anything, They screw things up worse than they already were.

originally posted by: beezzer
Apparently we should just love it because it has the words Net and Neutrality in the title.

Do you have a rationale as to why this is something the public shouldn't want? If you do even a very-small, minor, infinitesimal bit of research on the matter, you'll quickly discover that "Net Neutrality" was the term coined by independent websites, Internet content providers, and online stake-holders, not "the government."

originally posted by: whyamIhere
I am admittedly ignorant on this issue.

Anyone care to suggest some no BS material to read ?

That's the problem as far as I can see.

It is a great name with many theories at this point and the great dividers we have in DC already have people riled up without even knowing what the actual regulations will amount too....

Seems to be the operational norm in government anymore. Make up benevolent sounding name, and end up creating a destructive monster that has nothing that benefits the general public whatsoever.

I guess we will have to wait to see what's in it?

originally posted by: seeker1963
Make up benevolent sounding name,

See above, the name did not original within the government.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Really ?

'The internet should not operate at the speed of government'.

Is stupid ?

Because that is what I was agreeing with.

Net Neutrality = Allowing the internet to operate at the speed of available technology and infrastructure.

Versus providers slowing down the speed and then charging for different tiers of speed.

Let's say a month from now you go to ATS...and the page all of a sudden takes 60 seconds to load. You click on a thread and ditto...you go to post and ditto...running in Mud.

You ask WTF...and discover that goes for youtube and every other site you visit...running in mud. BUT CNN is running super-fast, lickety-split!

You call you internet provider and ask what's up...

They explain that any site you visit must pay them for access speed...anyone that doesn't will be slowed down before you reach it...and by the way they can do this on the receiving end as well...slow down your connection speed and pitch you a higher speed.

What that leaves is any start-up that can't afford to pay ransom...they can't deliver to high speed media to customers. Their site crawls..CNN can outbid other news networks for the speediest content etc. etc.

Net Neutrality means if an internet provider sells access...they can't then go ahead and then shake down each website to allow customer previously free and speedy access to that website.

Net Neutrality = "Neutral"..access for internet users and Internet Providers not shaking down websites.

Net Neutrality as described to you, by me. Now, understand that this is an analogy. Points made will not be exactly analogous, but you will get the picture.

Imagine if there were different brands handling your water services. You could get flat water, sparkling water, mineral water, whatever, all from the same faucet in your house. All you had to do was turn the handle, and there it was. All of the water came at the same pressure, and it was amazing.

Then, the people with the pipes figured out a way to slow down certain brands of water, lowering the pressure, and decided... "hey, if you want us to turn your pressure back up, you are going to need to pay!" The national brands of water fought it because they didn't want to have to pay, but in the end, they agreed to have their water come at full pressure. Many smaller water distributors weren't able to pay, and their customers experienced slower water and lower pressure. They stopped using the slower water, and eventually all that was left was the larger water distributors.

We lost all of those options because someone decided to tip the scales in favor of monied interests.

Water Neutrality would have stopped the Pipe Owners from crippling the infrastructure.

Net Neutrality will keep Internet Providers from doing the same thing.