Does Ted Cruz not understand Net Neutrality?

[Forever_frost]

No it doesn't. Your interpretation of it agrees with you. Who should we presume knows more about it? Constitutional scholars with decades on the bench, or you?

It was written so that even the farmers of the day could understand it. It is in English and simple. It doesn't need or permit interpretation.

The Supreme Court also said internment is constitutional. The document agrees with me. Guess which our Founders thought was more important.

Guess which one actually is more important, in 2014? I don't get why you go on these rants. They just make you look like a person that doesn't understand how the world works. We all get it, you're a big fan of the Constitution. You don't have to prove it every time something political is being discussed by sticking your head in the sand and just repeating Constitution over and over again.

[YALE]

The Supreme Court also said internment is constitutional. The document agrees with me. Guess which our Founders thought was more important.

No it doesn't. Your interpretation of it agrees with you. Who should we presume knows more about it? Constitutional scholars with decades on the bench, or you?

[CWO]

http://www.iflscience.com/technology/spacex-will-soon-be-launching-satellites-unfettered-low-cost-internet

[John -- '02 HAWK]

SOPA and PIPA were spawned by the RIAA, some of the big media companies, and ISPs as being attempts to overreach and stop piracy and establish the legal footings for the proposed service fees and paywalls. These acts are what brought net neutrality from being the "Information wants to be free" concept to a rallying point

[Forever_frost]

The Supreme Court also said internment is constitutional. The document agrees with me. Guess which our Founders thought was more important.

[YALE]

Didn't read the thread.
My problem with government control of anything, is bullshit government bureaucracy and how inefficient and ineffective it is, that and censorship, the government has been trying to pass sopa, cipa, and all these control measures to basically censure the Internet, even using China as its model for censorship.

SOPA and PIPA passing are not the same thing as a government agency regulating an industry it already oversees.

Has been used but is not what the clause actually says. It was about states trading, the writings of the time are very clear on this.

The horses are out of the barn, and the Supreme Court agrees with me, so what irrelevant argument would you like to make next? Get your representative to draft a bill neutering the clause in question, and lobby to get it through. Don't just cry in the mud like a spoiled kid at the unfairness of it all.

[CexMashean]

So, when does our internet get better? Anyone have the scoop on that?

[Forever_frost]

Except it has been used repeatedly to regulate commerce, so try again. At this point, the use of the commerce clause applies almost entirely to trade, including intrastate trade.

Has been used but is not what the clause actually says. It was about states trading, the writings of the time are very clear on this.

[YALE]

He and the repubs are in control of the board, they dont have to sacrifice a pawn to somebody who has lost most of the board. If he wants show what he's about, he should be doing right all the time. Instead this move just reinforces that he is the wrong candidate to the middle left who are lining up to vote for a motherly figure

Fair point. I still like him.

[matts5.0]

Didn't read the thread.
My problem with government control of anything, is bullshit government bureaucracy and how inefficient and ineffective it is, that and censorship, the government has been trying to pass sopa, cipa, and all these control measures to basically censure the Internet, even using China as its model for censorship.

[John -- '02 HAWK]

Uh.... He never claimed to be a candidate for the middle left. Have you not been paying attention?

If he wants to run for president he will.

[John -- '02 HAWK]

They can do all of this now, yet they don't. With the exception of the netflix incident. And that is my point, it isn't a real problem. I'll guarantee you there is some language in the solution that allows more government regulation of the internet though, which is the real goal here.

Thats why the push is coming, it an attempting to protect it now. The only thing that really has been stopping it has been lawsuits. So the real goal is protecting the end user, especially in areas where there is only 1 ISP.

Otherwise the ISPs are going to end unlimited access, start charging different per use unregulated service service fees (streaming movie, gaming, porn, connecting with another ISP/country, etc), and placing paywalls to stop content delivery (you want to watch HBO/Showtime your going to have to pay the ISP to unlock it)

[Broncojohnny]

yall are hearing about it because the threat to net neutrality is becoming a real possibility. What used to be a vague worry about governmental content throttling and censorship, has become a palpable commercial threat to content throttling and even censorship.

Net neutrality is not really about average net speed. Its about a government or corporation being able control what you use the internet for. Do you want corps to establish paywalls for playing online video games, even though you have already payed for internet access? Do you want to pay the corps to access the movie service that you have paid for and that is available because you paid for your internet? Do you want to have to pay more because you got some web site that some VP thinks is objectionable. Thats not the end of the pay walls either other ISPs or nations could establish paywalls and throttles as a tax.

They can do all of this now, yet they don't. With the exception of the netflix incident. And that is my point, it isn't a real problem. I'll guarantee you there is some language in the solution that allows more government regulation of the internet though, which is the real goal here.

[bcoop]

He and the repubs are in control of the board, they dont have to sacrifice a pawn to somebody who has lost most of the board. If he wants show what he's about, he should be doing right all the time. Instead this move just reinforces that he is the wrong candidate to the middle left who are lining up to vote for a motherly figure

Uh.... He never claimed to be a candidate for the middle left. Have you not been paying attention?