Does Ted Cruz not understand Net Neutrality?

[YALE]

So if no new regulation is required, whats the issue? We should be good right?

Does every problem require a new law to be solved?

[matts5.0]

We already have the regulation in question. Interference in this market, at this level, requires no new regulations. Why is that hard to understand? You're a smart guy.

So if no new regulation is required, whats the issue? We should be good right?

[YALE]

I fully understand the Netflix situation. One incident doesn't mean we need government regulation where we didn't have it in the past.

We already have the regulation in question. Interference in this market, at this level, requires no new regulations. Why is that hard to understand? You're a smart guy.

[CexMashean]

But you guys work off of "what ifs". Here's a "it did happen, and here's theit power", but yet this some how isn't enough? This is them, in the practice of doing what net neutrality is trying to prevent. But lets just ignore it?

fucking lollercoaster on you guys.

[Broncojohnny]

I fully understand the Netflix situation. One incident doesn't mean we need government regulation where we didn't have it in the past.

[CexMashean]

Has everyone forgot about this already, or do they just not understand it?

[boost addict]

And oh yea...

"Obamacare isn't a tax"

Then to the Supreme Court...

"Obamacare is a tax"

There's no way we know the truth of what Obama is really pushing.

[matts5.0]

A lot of smart people aren't buying it, a lot of smart people are, I think the difference in the two groups is their level of trust in government.

[Broncojohnny]

Every time Obama pushes for something we should just slow down and remember...

"If you like your Dr. you can keep your Dr."

"If you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance"

He has zero issue lying about any and everything. And I'm tellin ya he's lying about this one too.

Not only this but if these ISP's can do this for financial gain then why aren't they? Why do I have a FIOS connection right now that is neutral if there is so much money to be made by throttling my connection based on content? It all seems like a bunch of bullshit scaremongering. Where is all this abuse at and if it hasn't happened yet (for whatever reason) then why not wait until there is an actual problem to start dolling out new regulatory standards or whatever the fuck these guys want to pass?

Going back to what Boost Addict said, I am just not buying it. Fool me once and all that....

[boost addict]

Every time Obama pushes for something we should just slow down and remember...

"If you like your Dr. you can keep your Dr."

"If you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance"

He has zero issue lying about any and everything. And I'm tellin ya he's lying about this one too.

[boost addict]

This is a good debate. You IT guys that are a lot smarter than me can argue the fine details of this that would actually be beneficial.

However, you have to admit this is highly suspicious. Why? Why in the last two years of this ideologue's presidency would he push this? He is a slave to his ideology so why push a program as controversial as this? He acts only in those things that serve a political purpose and his ideology. Look at his record...Dodd Frank, obamacare, disarming our arsenals, etc. If it doesn't serve his leftist ideology he doesn't do it. Look at Keystone....no reason not to do it except it conflicts with his left wing ideology and environmental wackos.

We are being shown some of the nuts and bolts in this push for nn. But I promise you there is a bigger machine Obama is really working on. Somewhere in this his ideology is benefitting....not us. The only proof of this I need is all the lies and deception this administration has practiced in over the last 6 years.

My base argument....if this is something we need, Obama is not the guy to push for it. It's a Trojan horse for something else. No doubt.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.