Then Cruz is clearly lying....3. Franken says that we have had NN all along, and as you pointed out, Cruz says he wants it to remain the same. :shrug:
And without legislation to keep the Net neutral, there will be a lot more of both, and nearly all of it will be unnecessary and profit-motivated. You can bet your portfolio on that.As I have already pointed out, throttling and packet priority is already happening. Because it has too.
That isn't going to change.
:doh Not. :lamoThen Cruz is clearly lying.
There is going to be more period, whether NN exists or not, and no, it isn't unnecessary.And without legislation to keep the Net neutral, there will be a lot more of both, and nearly all of it will be unnecessary and profit-motivated. You can bet your portfolio on that.
You have no clue what he means by the same. In context it would mean without the imposed classification that Obama wants.
Out of context is could simply mean neutral as it has been without any regulation.
But since you say so; Prove it.
":doh Not. :lamo" On both counts.There is going to be more period, whether NN exists or not, and no, it isn't unnecessary.
:doh :lamoThe proof is in this very thread; you just haven't been paying attention.
Why would Cruz be taking $47k from the major ISPs to keep "existing NN" the same?
1. Your reply is idiotic as no game is being played."doh Not. lamo" On both counts.
(See? Two can play that game.)
:doh :lamo
That isn't proving anything but you having an over active imagination. Nothing more.
And Obama got more from their CEO's than he ever has.
So what does your over active imagination tell you about that?
Comcast, Time Warner execs have been big Obama supporters | TheHill
1. Your reply is idiotic as no game is being played.
2. It is you who are wrong.
There is going to be more period, whether NN exists or not, and no, it isn't unnecessary.
Wrong.Pot, meet kettle. The above is nothing but a bunch of "nuh-uh"s.
Your are speaking nonsense again.To avoid further embarrassment to yourself, grow up and admit that you have nothing to support the claims you've been mindlessly repeating for the past several pages.
Wrong.
You haven't shown any lies. The only thing you have proven is you have an over active imagination and a lack of knowledge concerning the issue.
Your are speaking nonsense again.
Which is all you have provided.
Btw, you are the one who needs to grow up with all the childish nonsense you spew and your over active imagination.
You are still speaking your own childish delusional nonsense.Now you're not even bothering to deny anything I've said. You just let your discussion devolve into delusion so you can play by basement rules.
Keep going, though - you amuse me.
In both his Opinion piece and his video, he is clearly speaking to Obama's suggestion for NN of classifying it as a Utility.
Any other suggestion besides that is out of context.
1. He does not have to say he is for NN when he is addressing and specifically against Obama's NN suggestion.
2. Whether he is, or isn't for NN in principle, is irrelevant to his opposition to it being classified as a utility.
3. Franken says that we have had NN all along, and as you pointed out, Cruz says he wants it to remain the same. :shrug:
:doh Specifically in rebuttal to Franken's bs about NN.
And I seriously doubt the way his staff has labled the video matters one bit to the current argument.
But here is a suggestion. Email or call his Office and ask?
It is that simple.
Ask he is opposed over all to NN or just what Obama is suggesting.
To me, his overall position is irrelevant to opposing Obama's suggestion as Gov control by classification is not needed. Nor are the taxes that come along with such classification.
Unlikely. Especially if legislation is introduced to give the FCC authority to keep the Net neutral and the power through fines to enforce it. That would not be any where near the control it would have over it as a utility and would not included the taxes of a Utility.
:dohThis is definitely the dumbest argument I've ever been part of on this forum. I tried to find out if Cruz is for or against net neutrality. I cannot find out. Nobody knows. Nobody has any idea what his stance on the issue is or whether or not Cruz believes that it is a problem or a potential problem. He just jumps into this debate to throw around the term "net neutrality" left and right as though the definition of net neutrality is "putting the FCC in charge of the internet." Were he to go out there and offer another suggestion, I might feel that he has a legitimate point to make. As it is, he is either putting a spin on the issue or is very confused. I'll give him enough credit to say that he is just very confused.
Besides, the way that he characterizes the "utility" approach is very dishonest. He's such a snake and this whole thing is part of the Cruz Corporate Circus. It makes me physically ill to think that anybody has the time and inclination to defend that weasel.
:doh
Yes, your argument is one of the dumbest on this forum.
Cruz opposes Obama's desire to classify it as a utility. There was no reason for anybody to go further than that for this discussion. None.
And no, the way he characterizes it is not dishonest.
You will be taxed. Period
It opens it up to rate regulation. Period
It opens it up to to further regulation it does not need.
And yes, Gov regulation can stifle innovation.
All are legitimate reasons to oppose how Obama wants to obtain NN.
All folks like you see is NN and put no thought into the ramification of doing it this way. That is called be a sheeple.
It does not need to be obtained this way.
What is moronic is your reply.Cruz's argument is that if Obama doesn't force through a bill that puts the internet under the jurisdiction of the FCC, things will stay exactly like they are now.
If you don't think that's moronic, then you are more clueless than I thought.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?