Does Ted Cruz not understand Net Neutrality?

[Chas_svo]

This guy is funny.

My mistake...$1.90/year per phone.

But my information is coming from the current head of the FCC:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/the-fcc-plans-to-increase-your-phone-bill-to-build-better-internet-in-schools-20141117

He would seem to be about as sourced as we are gonna get at this time. Unless you wanna use Obama as the source....and then do we need to go over that guys history of telling the truth? Lol

I don't have any proof the FCC guy is lying. I got plenty of proof Obama shouldn't be trusted to tell us what time of day it is.

You should watch the video. Odummer appointed the chief of the telecom lobbying group to head the FCC. Doesn't seem like a conflict at all. He's no longer on Comcast's payroll, so I'm sure we should be OK. Just trust him...and the other pathological liar.

all of the sudden

[exlude]

Requirement or no...it's what they're gonna do. It's why Obama wants it so bad. Another revenue stream to redistribute.

EVERYTHING this guy does is ideology driven. It fits. It's redistribution in its most base form

Tax those that have the internet to give to those who don't. And in the process make sure they get the same access as everyone else...and call it net neutrality.

Gruber exposed it in obamacare. If they said take money from the young and healthy to give to old people it'd never have passed. Expose it as the tax it is and it'll never pass.

If they tell you net neutrality (as they see it) means take from the haves to give to the have nots it'll never be implemented. But that's just what they've snuck into it.

Again, muddling. Reclassifying broadband as a utility does none of this. Using obamacare as your parallel shows an unfortunately common misunderstanding. This is not new legislation and I'd recommend another thread for your topic as the relevance is slim to none.

[racrguy]

My mistake...$1.90/year per phone.

But my information is coming from the current head of the FCC:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/the-fcc-plans-to-increase-your-phone-bill-to-build-better-internet-in-schools-20141117

He would seem to be about as sourced as we are gonna get at this time. Unless you wanna use Obama as the source....and then do we need to go over that guys history of telling the truth? Lol

I don't have any proof the FCC guy is lying. I got plenty of proof Obama shouldn't be trusted to tell us what time of day it is.

You shouldn't trust a fucking thing the chairman of the FCC is saying, for reasons outlined earlier. He's going to say anything he can in order to make this dead so as not to piss off his next employer, who just so happens to be the worst of the bunch.

[boost addict]

It's more muddling. Net neutrality does not require any change to tax structure regarding the internet.

Requirement or no...it's what they're gonna do. It's why Obama wants it so bad. Another revenue stream to redistribute.

EVERYTHING this guy does is ideology driven. It fits. It's redistribution in its most base form

Tax those that have the internet to give to those who don't. And in the process make sure they get the same access as everyone else...and call it net neutrality.

Gruber exposed it in obamacare. If they said take money from the young and healthy to give to old people it'd never have passed. Expose it as the tax it is and it'll never pass.

If they tell you net neutrality (as they see it) means take from the haves to give to the have nots it'll never be implemented. But that's just what they've snuck into it.

[exlude]

It's just a link of where the $1.90/year came from.

My apologies if you don't see the relevance.

It's more muddling. Net neutrality does not require any change to tax structure regarding the internet.

[boost addict]

Yeah, that link you posted has next to nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It's just a link of where the $1.90/year came from.

My apologies if you don't see the relevance.

[exlude]

I mean...if the FCC is gonna be the bunch in charge of net neutrality...shouldn't we believe them when they say there's gonna be fees associated with it?

And better yet...when those same people say those fees are going to be used to expand access to the poor and spend more in schools....wouldn't that fit with obamas redistribution model of the economy?

Yeah, that link you posted has next to nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[boost addict]

I mean...if the FCC is gonna be the bunch in charge of net neutrality...shouldn't we believe them when they say there's gonna be fees associated with it?

And better yet...when those same people say those fees are going to be used to expand access to the poor and spend more in schools....wouldn't that fit with obamas redistribution model of the economy?

[boost addict]

My mistake...$1.90/year per phone.

But my information is coming from the current head of the FCC:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/the-fcc-plans-to-increase-your-phone-bill-to-build-better-internet-in-schools-20141117

He would seem to be about as sourced as we are gonna get at this time. Unless you wanna use Obama as the source....and then do we need to go over that guys history of telling the truth? Lol

I don't have any proof the FCC guy is lying. I got plenty of proof Obama shouldn't be trusted to tell us what time of day it is.

[likeitfast55]

You're right. And he does wanna do this. Badly.

Go back to my comments on him being a slave to his ideology. Why does he wanna do it?

It's to tax the internet and distribute those funds to the poor and public schools for internet usage. He slathers it in the chocolate of equal internet speeds and holding providers accountable....but if you look at anything moochelle Obama and the emperor himself have stated about Internet for the poor this thing begins to make sense.

And you and I instantly hit with another $1.90/month per phone to cover net neutrality...those comments from the FCC commissioner start to ring true.

You make some good points(slow the fuck down) A lot of emotional and misleading facts because of the widespread disdain for our Commander In Chief. It appears that this is what is wanted by those pushing against keeping the status quo. That has me and others, even GOP supporters concerned.

[racrguy]

You're right. And he does wanna do this. Badly.

Go back to my comments on him being a slave to his ideology. Why does he wanna do it?

It's to tax the internet and distribute those funds to the poor and public schools for internet usage. He slathers it in the chocolate of equal internet speeds and holding providers accountable....but if you look at anything moochelle Obama and the emperor himself have stated about Internet for the poor this thing begins to make sense.

And you and I instantly hit with another $1.90/month per phone to cover net neutrality...those comments from the FCC commissioner start to ring true.

Where are you getting the 1.90 fee from? Are you going to go on the unsourced words of a guy who has proven to have a conflict of interest, or were you able to find out where in the legislation it says this fee will be charged?

[boost addict]

Truth be told, if Obama wanted this to happen, nobody could stop it short of a lawsuit or a new piece of legislation, which Obama won't sign and it'll force congress to override the veto, or he could pocket veto it.

You're right. And he does wanna do this. Badly.

Go back to my comments on him being a slave to his ideology. Why does he wanna do it?

It's to tax the internet and distribute those funds to the poor and public schools for internet usage. He slathers it in the chocolate of equal internet speeds and holding providers accountable....but if you look at anything moochelle Obama and the emperor himself have stated about Internet for the poor this thing begins to make sense.

And you and I instantly hit with another $1.90/month per phone to cover net neutrality...those comments from the FCC commissioner start to ring true.

[racrguy]

Truth be told, if Obama wanted this to happen, nobody could stop it short of a lawsuit or a new piece of legislation, which Obama won't sign and it'll force congress to override the veto, or he could pocket veto it.

[boost addict]

There are no specifics in that article about the "four-paragraph-long section of the 1996 Telecommunications Act." so it's hard to take them seriously, or check what they're saying. I want to know exactly what section he's talking about that they can somehow justify it. Also: It's from Fox News, so my skeptic meter is off the fucking charts, especially that O'Reilly has a nice cushy job at Comcast waiting for him. Conflict of interest much?

My skeptic alarm is peg'd all around. All the more reason to just slow the heck down and let us all see what's going on here. It's what scares me when all of the sudden they wanna rush into action on something.

Obamacare is proof of that. Was supposed to save us $2500/year and mine has gone up at least that much.

Something stinks about this too.