Ted Cruz Doubles Down On Misunderstanding The Internet & Net Neutrality, As Republican Engineers Call Him Out For Ignorance
from the open-your-mouth-and... dept
Last week, we mentioned Senator Ted Cruz's nutty tweet comparing net neutrality to "Obamacare." It was widely mocked -- even by many Republicans -- as it showed Cruz's ignorance of the subject at hand. In fact, one report detailed a number of comments on Ted Cruz's Facebook page from Republican/conservative engineers disagreeing with Cruz and pointing out that he's uninformed about net neutrality. Here's a sampling:
Rather than recognize this fact, Cruz has decided to double down on it with a rambling and misguided opinion piece in the Washington Post that repeats the "Obamacare for the internet" line, and lumps in a variety of other tech issues in a confusing (and often self-contradictory) jumble. He warns against taxing internet access (good), but then joins in the total overreaction to the Commerce Department's decision to officially relinquish its (barely existent) control over ICANN, falsely claiming that this will allow the Russians, Chinese and the Iranians to control the internet. This is not true. In fact, by giving up the Commerce Department's link to ICANN, it helps cut off the path the Russians, Chinese and Iranians are trying to use to do an end run around ICANN, by giving more power to the ITU. In other words, Senator Cruz (once again) seems to not understand this policy issue at all, and is recommending a policy that is more likely to lead to the world he fears.
Then he gets back around to net neutrality, once again showing he doesn't understand it:
In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.Not a single part of that is accurate. Under the proposed plan, the government would not be in charge of determining any of those. Rather, it would make it so that no one (including the internet access providers) could block what types of products and services can be delivered. It takes a special kind of wrongness to look at a plan that is focused on making sure that no one can be blocked and argue that it means the government gets to pick what services can be delivered.
Even more bizarre, Cruz's final point is to celebrate the victory over SOPA and PIPA as a great example of protecting free speech online, ignoring the fact that it's the very same people who made the victory possible who are now fighting for net neutrality.
In 2012, those who care about Internet freedom were shocked as bills such as the Stop Online Piracy and Protect IP acts, which would regulate speech on the Internet under the guise of protecting property rights, started gaining popularity in Washington. Thankfully, online activists were quick to mobilize to protect their free-speech rights. But we must remain vigilant. Intellectual property must be defended, but any threat to quell speech on the Internet must be treated seriously and subsequently defeated.Yes, and it's the very same online activists now trying to "protect free speech rights" by making sure that the internet stays open via net neutrality rules. And, yes, it is a free speech issue, because letting internet access providers block or discriminate against certain companies, individuals, services or types of content (such as encrypted content) will stifle free speech.
So, Cruz claims to support online activists and their push to guarantee free speech online... but at the same time opposes those very same activists and their push to protect free speech online by calling it "Obamacare for the internet"? I don't know who Ted Cruz's tech staffers are, but they might want to educate themselves a bit -- and not from the lobbyists at AT&T and Verizon.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: activism, free speech, gop, net neutrality, open internet, republicans, ted cruz
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's not impossible to dance around the truth, speak in nebulous terms, and obfuscate the issue. That's what he's paid to do, but instead his article is just the idiot's version of NN Cliff's Notes.
How bout this, if he were more shrewd:
"Network Neutrality, as enacted by the government, would just be a further regulatory extension and Washington power grab. It would be subject to the biases and bungling of beltway politicians, and set up our country with concrete regulations that are unable to flex and change at the speed of Internet innovation. That would cripple our country's ability to stay nimble, and provide the worlds most important tech advances. What's more, we run the risk of moneyed interests gaining too much influence at the regulatory level, and biasing the rules against the citizens of this great nation."
Then he should probably add the following for good measure,
"Thus, we must fight against NN. At least to protect the children. USA #1. Obama sux."
That pile of BS would give him enough cover to vote what his funders want, and have some confusing cover. Nobody would be talking about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
His constituents don't know what a "net neutrality" is, but they sure know what an "Obamacare" is, so they know if he's against something Obama supports, he's fighting the good fight.
He only has to be smarter than the people that vote for him, and apparently that's not very smart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if that level of clueless can exist. I think it's some sort of stunt to draw attention to (or divert attention from) something. Are we missing some important detail here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, you're missing that he's talking to his base. Not to you, to me or to anybody else. He's nothing if he isn't re-elected and that level of cluelessness is dominant within his electorate. He's throwing them red meat, so they remember who is at election time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nothing new for some politicians except that he's made it to the level of the Senate.
Best description I've heard of the Tea Party and Cruz's ilk is that they are basically House members...the tempest in a tea cup the Senate is meant to cool off by design.
Except they are in the Senate and the body simply doesn't handle firebrands who fully intend to gum up the works and do expressly nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the government is keen enough to do this, they can do it just as easily right now. Net neutrality doesn't enter into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He was swept into power because he told all of the right lies, and now those who blindly supported him for having the right soundbites have to deal with the simple fact that he is no different from those others he demonizes.
Perhaps people should focus on the real issues, and not the soundbites. It should be clear he is uninformed at best and at worst bought and paid for by special interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservative Here
I'm also an IT professional of about 30 years and am very familiar with these issues since my own local ISP throttles certain bandwidth.
I do agree that there needs to be some governing body over the internet - the problem is, who will that be. And traditionally, you give the government a penny and they're in for a pound.
Why are politicians/judges/cops with little to no understanding about technology able to make/judge/enforce laws on technology? We really need TESTS that cops/judges/politicians are FORCED to take before being able to pass/propose laws, enforce laws or make judgements on laws concerning that technology.
I certainly don't see a foot specialist when I'm having an issue with my liver and I don't blame the foot doctor for not knowing as much about my liver. It should be the same with technology - Sorry Senator, you're 72 years old and don't even have a smart phone - you're not allowed to vote legislation involving smartphones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conservative Here
I suggest you visit some places that don't HAVE a proper government (Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria spring to mind) and see how much more crap it can be without the government.
btw in my experience most large, old, private organisations are as bad as (or worse than) governments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conservative Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Conservative Here
Citation needed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conservative Here
"I do agree that there needs to be some governing body over the internet - the problem is, who will that be."
"We really need TESTS that cops/judges/politicians are FORCED to take before being able to pass/propose laws, enforce laws or make judgements on laws concerning that technology."
Government isn't to be trusted, but we should use government to issue tests to people trying to regulate stuff.
Sounds legit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conservative Here
"The government" is not monolithic and not all parts of the government run equally well or poorly. As such, it is dangerous to take your experiences with the IRS and the VA and claim that they are representative of how all parts of the government operate. They aren't. They are representative of how the IRS and the VA operate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conservative Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Conservative Here
Man, when your house is on fire, it really sucks to have the government come put the fire out!
Did you put any thought into your comment, or did I just get trolled by a troll calling someone else a troll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Conservative Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conservative Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conservative Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conservative Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Conservative Here
The meaning of "liberal" and "conservative" (or their respective translations) in politics has a wide variety of meanings from country to country.
Maybe we'd be better off dispensing with those terms and having a traditionalist/non-traditionalist or libertarian/fascism spectrum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Conservative Here
Unless you say who would be on the other end of that spectrum I couldn't possibly comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Conservative Here
Yes, I was attempting humor through understatement.
"we'd be better off dispensing with those terms"
I couldn't agree more. In the US, the divide between "liberal" and "conservative" isn't the important one. That's just the divide promoted to keep us plebes fighting with each other and distracted from the real threats and problems.
Plus, there is no actual "liberal" force in the US that has any political power -- it's "conservative" and "ultra-conservative" anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Conservative Here
"Fascist ideology consistently invokes the primacy of the state."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
"Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Now THAT is a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Conservative Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conservative Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Conservative Here
Liberals in the US may be seen as socialists rather than liberals. If you are constantly fighting for positive freedoms you are a socialist, while a liberal fight against curtailing of negative freedoms.
Thus conservative and liberal in US is to some degree a less controversial naming convention. Arguably the conservatives and liberals are still in the right parties, but generally primaries are biasing towards the middle of the parties. Extreme "conservative directions" would be several authoritarian directions (theocracy, individualist anarchism and fascism), while extreme "liberal direction" would be several other authoritarian directions (communism, collectivistic anarchism and statism).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conservative Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's why recognizing your OWN bias is so important
Policy and even claims about the nature of things should not be accepted by such biased personal anecdotes.
That's the first thing to deal with here.
Your conclusion about everything-the-government-does is completely nonsense. You have not got a good sample, an objective study. Your judgment is as careless as saying that you got mugged by some black guys on two different occassions, so all African Americans are violent criminals.
The government touched what became our National Park system. That's crap? Or turning to crap? What utter nonsense.
Note: I'm not saying *anything* disputing your personal experience with the IRS and VA. I'm not even saying that it wasn't typical. Perhaps the IRS is generally horrible. But you are part of the problem here if you use certain bad examples and then accept wholecloth the Republican campaign message of knee-jerk anti-government sentiment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's why recognizing your OWN bias is so important
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That's why recognizing your OWN bias is so important
Jefferson. Who bought Louisiana without constitutional or congressional authority. That Jefferson.
You may want to rethink your stance. Or, since you are unlikely to do that, use a better example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conservative Here
It's impossible for the government to turn the US broadband market to crap, because it's already crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conservative Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought you said you were a conservative. Perhaps you're just normal and don't need a label? Or does conservative mean you like regulations that help you, and not the ones that help others? I guess that is probably more likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ted Cruz can suck a bag of dicks and so can the majority of Elephants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: J.R. on Nov 17th, 2014 @ 8:21am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: J.R. on Nov 17th, 2014 @ 8:21am
http://m.memegen.com/bjunrv.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's little point in this, actually
If he knows, then he's doing it deliberately in order to serve his masters, by repeating their talking points and hoping that doing so often enough, loudly enough, and vehemently enough will reach the low-information/low-intelligence population that is too ignorant and too stupid to realize he's lying.
If he doesn't know, then he's part of the low-information/low-intelligence population and is too ignorant and too stupid to realize he's lying.
Either way, he's not going to change. Why should he? This is America, where ignorance and stupidity are quite often rewarded, sometimes highly rewarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's little point in this, actually
"Buy Ted Cruz a Clue Campaign"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's little point in this, actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's little point in this, actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's little point in this, actually
It is a serious strategic error to presume that those you disagree with, or oppose, or loathe, or fight, or anything else, are ignorant and stupid just because. Sure, sometimes they are. And sometimes they're better educated and smarter than you are. So if you actually hope to defeat them in an intellectual (or other) sense, you must begin by first letting go of the delusion that you are necessarily their intellectual superior. It's a classic mistake, made innumerable times throughout history, and there's really no need to repeat it.
For example: I have no admiration for Putin -- but it is equally beyond all reasonable argument that he's an educated and intelligent man. Clearly, he is, and my vehement disagreement with his policies doesn't change that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There's little point in this, actually
Love the part of your post about intellectual superiority. Seems in your rush to prove yours you misinterpet my post. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: There's little point in this, actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's little point in this, actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: There's little point in this, actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's little point in this, actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's little point in this, actually
Lying involves intentional deceit, so it's not possible to lie without knowing it. He's either lying or bullshitting (saying things to further an agenda without knowing or caring whether they're true).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tin Foil Hat time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tin Foil Hat time?
Keep in mind that it wasn't long ago that Wheeler came out with is own plan that was immediately slapped down by the vast majority of people that follow this issue. Obama could have spoken out against it at any time. Why did he wait until after the elections? He had to know the uproar the right would have just because Obama was "for" something. This had to have been intentional. So why do it?
Now it would be so much easier for Wheeler to come out with a hybrid plan and say he was bending to the will of the country who are divided on the issue. There would never had been this division had Obama not spoken out for it. I don't think the Republicans even know they are being duped and think they are just against something because Obama is for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tin Foil Hat time?
This is wild west economics. Ya need a selfmade man to run the show, not a paperpushing bureaucrat to tell ya what a-do.
That is how the american dream is sold. Negative rights über alles. A few collaterals here and there never hurt anyone, well, ya know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tin Foil Hat time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's always the fear of the "slippery slope syndrome" -- the same reason the U.S. gun lobby is dead set against any and all government regulation of guns, no matter how miniscule, benign, or demanded by voters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 17th, 2014 @ 8:57am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh yea, don't forget that pesky document called the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And that being done, what's a few more small cuts each year?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And yet he's acting like he's been bought off right now. It's either that or he's just stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
WOW - you must be seeing an *entirely* different politician than the rest of the world. Cruz and his whole party are plainly bought and paid for. That's not to say the Democrats aren't bought and paid for by a slightly differing set of sponsors, but they, at least aren't quite so blatantly hypocritical as the GOP has been in recent http://gizmodo.com/how-much-money-big-cable-gave-the-politicians-who-overs-1657002442
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I read it as the "threat to" being the object that should be "treated seriously and subsequently defeated.". Therefore he wants to defend the right to "quell speech" in the same way IP must be defended. Out of context, this rambling seems to take a shot at stupid internet activists who use free speech to attack IP and now the sovereignty of businesses.
Of course the "but" is cracking at that interpretation. I just wonder if it isn't par for the course. When you write such a rambling sentence, it could look like he is rogueing it from speechwriters and revealing his true face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
cruz is an idiot and the majority of members of congress have openly stated they belive so, they have also stated that if he stands for something then it is normally the best thing to hold the opposite position, yes his words get written about but that is only becasue he is so crazy, when it comes to politicking he has been isolated as an idiot that should not be recognised in any way by most in politics today.
Whereas most politicians want to do there job cruz just wants to prevent anyone doing their job and he is one of the few politicians that is ignored and when you are ignored in politics it makes no difference how many supporters you have , if you cannot get support for bills you put forward becasue of who you are you have absolutely no power like Cruz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honesty, integrity, and... something
-- In case you live under a rock, the traditional definition of an honest politician is one who, once bought, STAYS bought. --
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A moment of sanity!
But it does not mean that he will be wrong. You have all seen it, the comity writing up the rules on the internet will ultimately be nothing more than window dressing.
This is a problem that was created by the punks in power to begin with.
If we had real competition, then we would have service providers BOASTING about their bandwidth to nutflix instead of hiding a shitty connection.
So while I still like Cruz and think he is knows jack and fuckall what he is talking about on this note, he is not entirely off base either. You all know that Obama will lie out his damn teeth to sucker you into what you think is a good deal and pull the rug right the fuck out from under you.
Fool me once...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A moment of sanity!
And I don't know where you think competition comes from, but it doesn't just magically appear and grand scales as soon as you deregulate things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A moment of sanity!
I have yet to be lied to by Cruz that I am aware of... I am willing to change my stance on that the moment he does. Cruz does not have to be bought and paid for by the cable monopoly to be wrong or right.
However, I have far more knowledge of Obama than I do of Cruz as well, so for now, even though Cruz's remarks look stupid, it is also stupid for us to run around and assume that Obama has any good will either.
You are correct, both may very well be sleazy politicians, but currently I am more focused on Obama as he has shown his willingness to abuse power, and is already on record for willingly lying to the American people he is SUPPOSED to serve, multiple times.
Also, you will notice that I said nothing of deregulating anything, I am however saying that REGULATIONS have only done what they were supposed to have prevented, instead of fixing those, you just wander off and take a known liar at his word to fix something?
My opinion of Cruz really are secondary here... and while I completely agree with the "words" coming out of Obama's mouth in this case, I have serious doubts about his sincerity or actual desire to deliver on them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A moment of sanity!
"Obama, instead of nominating a health professional, he nominated someone who is an anti-gun activist (for surgeon general)."
Lie. Nominee had an M.D. from Yale.
ISIS is "right now crucifying Christians in Iraq, literally nailing Christians to trees."
Lie. Absolutely zero evidence supporting this assertion.
Says children are coming into the U.S. in "staggering numbers" because President Barack Obama "has been promising amnesty."
Lie. Previous president reaffirmed policy letting children stay while immigration cases are heard.
Says President Barack Obama "is the first president we've ever had who thinks he can choose which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore."
Lie. There's a long history of pushing the envelope by past presidents.
"Virtually every person across this country has seen premiums going up and up and up" due to Obamacare.
Lie. Virtually, not even close to every person.
"A strong bipartisan majority" in the House of Representatives "voted to defund Obamacare."
Lie. Two Democratic votes out of 190 isn't bipartisan.
UPS left 15,000 employees’ spouses "without health insurance" and told them to, "go on an exchange with no employer subsidy."
Lie. Spouses only kicked off plan if they can get coverage in their own jobs.
Says "President Obama just granted all of Congress an exception" to Obamacare.
Lie. Lawmakers will use new marketplaces.
"Expanding Medicaid will worsen health care options for the most vulnerable among us in Texas."
Lie. A deliberate misreading of the studies conclusions.
Says the Democrats told the Catholic Church that they’ll use federal powers to shut down church charities and hospitals if the church doesn’t change its beliefs.
Lie. Hard to believe ’cause never happened.
Says Chuck Hagel’s nomination as defense secretary "has been publicly celebrated by the Iranian government."
Lie. One man hoping Washington would become "respectful of the rights of nations".
Says "the jurisdictions with the strictest gun control laws, almost without exception … have the highest crime rates and the highest murder rates."
Lie. Contradictions aren’t hard to find.
David Dewhurst "has never once cut one penny from the state budget."
Lie. Sweepingly flawed.
"Did you know ObamaCare will cost nearly twice as much as initially expected -- $1.8 TRILLION?"
Lie. 9 percent isn't nearly double.
David Dewhurst has a "record of promoting an income tax."
Lie. One remark shortly reconsidered.
Says Barack Obama "began his presidency going on a worldwide apology tour."
Lie. Kindling on an old fire.
Q: How can you tell if a politician is lying?
A: Their lips are moving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A moment of sanity!
But there are some that put him square in the liars court. Sadly my opinion of him is falling. With that said... The first and fourth items are pretty damning, I would consider Dr. Vivek Murthy a genuine medical professional based on readily available information. But their wanting to block him on political reasons is fair game on either side that is the nature of politics. And Obama is damn sure not the first president to pull stupid shit, he is damn wrong there.
So look at it like this... let him keep running his mouth, its how we can tell if he is worth his shit or not... I think people are beginning to figure it out, but unfortunately that good old my party loyalty will gets more retards like bush and obama in still.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A moment of sanity!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A moment of sanity!
All politicians lie, its practically their jobs because the American people actually and surprisingly can not and will not handle the bitter truth. A politicians job is sugar coat it for the weak hearted voters that lack the fundamental facilities to break things down to their common denominators. The Democrats pride themselves on making the road to the slaughter sound like a fun filled fairy tale adventure.
I could vote Dem... if he was a conservative one, but these days... the Dems just lie that they are for the little people and go do all the richy rich stuff they accuse the Reps of. No hypocrisy there eh?
Obama has greatly damaged this nation to the point where I am beginning to believe it is intentional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A moment of sanity!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A moment of sanity!
Yet.
I'm guessing because he's waiting to get in the Big Chair before he really starts mucking things up.
I mean who really gave a hoot about our current president, or heck our previous one, until they became POTUS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A moment of sanity!
Everyone makes mistakes sure... but Bush Followed up by Obama has given us the literal worst of both parties back to back. Their tag team bullshit is hurting American bad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ted Cruz is so Anti-Onama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many Internet Service Providers (ISP) are also creators/gatekeepers of content their interest is in keeping you within the fold with efforts that inhibit your ability to select the content you wish to consume from sources that you wish to use.
This takes place with a slow down of your connection to a content provider that your content creating/gatekeeper ISP finds to be outside of that which they want you to use.
These slowdowns are then used by you ISP to blackmail content providers that want to provide a service to you by making them pay to deliver their content to you unencumbered.
We saw this with Comcast and Netflix.
Currently an Internet customer pays a monthly fee to get connected to the Internet at loosely defined speed and in most cases of Cable/FIOS/DSL unlimited monthly data amounts.
(Some regions have data caps and need to pay more for usage above a set amount)
What content/gatekeeper ISP's are trying to do is create a two level Internet where content they want you to see gets better treatment than what you may wish to consume from services that they do not control.
My general feeling is a bit is a bit, a byte a byte, a packet a packet, they should be delivered with no arbitrary restrictions from a content creating gatekeeper ISP.
True Net Neutrality is that you get what you pay for and the government stays out of the Internet.
ISP's are not allowed to slow down your connection for any reason that is within their control.
No two tiered Internet.
No Government Control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Content creators, hosts, or licensers should not be allow to own in any part the roads their content travels on.
The conflict of interest is absolutely too huge!
I like free market, but we need strong anti monopoly laws to keep the big boys from getting to much power, because all they do is stifle the market when they get enough power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No Government Control."
sadly, you can only have one or the other in this instance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I LOVE politics
REALLY do..
I LOVe when words appear out of their MOUTHS..
Words that..BLAME/POINT/DESCRIBE..
And the person using them, has NO IDEA the meaning of the words he is using..NO basic foundation in what is being said.
Does anyone here get the idea that this person DOES NOT READ??
He has OTHERS read, and interpret what OTHERS SAY..but no BASIC meaning to the words of concepts behind them..He only believes what HE IS TOLD..
PLEASE PEOPLE..This is an elected job..MAKE sure the person HIRED(yes hired) has an EDUCATION in something beyond, POLITICS and PARTYING..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But They’re Engineers ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But They’re Engineers ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cruz'n for a bruis'n
I'm inclined toward the latter view, despite agreeing the Cruz on perhaps 70% of issues facing the country: besides this stance, which as many have noted can be explained only by stupidity or having been suborned by telecom interests, there was Cruz's ill-fated appearance at an event sponsored by Arab Christians, at which he put his foot in his mouth with an assertion that to the effect that Christians have no better friend than Israel -- deeply offensive to Arab Christians, who in the Middle East have faired quite well under Ba'athist governments with their ideology of secular pan-Arab nationalism, and for which he was rightly heckled.
As in this instance, he doubled down on his gaffe.
I have a feeling that if GOP nominates Cruz in 2016, as the subject says, they'll be Cruz'n for a bruis'n.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whether Cruz is correct or not, remains to be seen. But it is clear we cannot trust Obama with this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, we should let giant corporations with no competition do what they want with little oversight, because that generally works out great. I mean, our internet service is way better than those smelly socialists have with all their government interference and what not, because motherfucking eagles!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently "Obamacare" is the new "Communist"
The delicious irony is that Republicans came up with the word to mock the Affordable Care Act, but when (as is likely) it becomes an entrenched and valued part of the health care system, it will enshrine the guy they hate so much in history.
Today's young people no longer recoil in horror at "socialism". Maybe someday the same will be true of "Obamacare".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Socialism is also an oppression of the people. It allows for the power to shift from the people to the government. The government promises to pay (and does to some extent) for services of those "less fortunate" in return for obedience, loyalty, loss of individual freedom.
In our case today, America is steaming toward socialism. The democratic party has adopted the idea of socialism as its primary means of governance. It wants us to give up our personal freedom so that "other less fortunate" can have a dignified standard of living, whether earned or not. This is the big lie about socialism: it can't deliver. Once you take away a man's incentive to work, he stops working. Thus it enslaves the people it says it's helping.
Obamacare is not socialism in the truest sense, but rather it is a bastardization of stunted capitalism and socialism. It's purpose is not to provide services to the poor by taking from the rich. It's goal is the complete destruction of the current (albeit broken) system. Then Obama can rise from the ashes and implement a complete government controlled socialist healthcare system.
This is why the term "Obamacare" should be even more feared than the terms communism or socialism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama can rise from the ashes and implement...
Is the ACA perfect? Hell no, it has plenty of problems. But Obama rising "from the ashes" to "implement a complete government controlled socialist healthcare system"? What kind of drugs have you been taking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obama can rise from the ashes and implement...
Yeah, the one based on people buying insurance from various private companies. You know - socialism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ted cruz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]