"We want a whole lot more of this," Cruz says in the video, waving an iPhone in the air, which he used as a proxy for innovation that can occur in the absence of government regulation. "And a whole lot less of this," he adds, pointing to a rotary phone, a symbol of an industry he says was "frozen in place" by regulation.
Cruz's argument, though, relies on a different reading of what "the same" means. Franken is arguing that the Internet will be just as open to innovation as it always has been, since net neutrality has always been in effect and will remain in effect. Indeed, it would be hard to make the case that the Internet's current regulatory structure has made innovation impossible. Cruz instead is re-appropriating the phrase to imply that the Internet as a whole will never be able to change from the way it is now.
Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality
With every other statement Cruz makes on this subject, he proves he doesn't understand what is being discussed here or has the first clue regarding the inner working of the internet. First of all, he argues that rotary phones are symbols of being "frozen in time". Then he argues that iphones are... what? A symbol of innovation? Well... aside from all of Apple's issues with stealing technology, does he not realize that at one point or another rotary phones were innovative? Does he believe they're still widely used? Does he believe his iPhone will evolve like a Pokemon and won't become a relic of time 25 years from now? Well, whatever he intended to show with that argument it failed. However, this is what made me laugh the most:
In short, this is the reason Cruz and opposers of net neutrality have been laughed at. Not only have they been dishonest in their presentation of the facts, they've completely tried to change the arguments around net neutrality. They've tried to paint their opposition to NN - which includes slow lanes, making developers and producers pay ransoms to ISPs and denying other companies businesses - as part of a process of innovation. Not only is that laughable, it's criminally dishonest. Hopefully, the generation (mine) which grew up using the internet will not fall for it.
Its cute that you think the same statists which have ruined anything they try to put into law would somehow be even borderline competent here.
Leftists are about control, this is an example of how.
Can you tell us how net neutrality restricts innovation? I'll wait.
Its cute that you think the same statists which have ruined anything they try to put into law would somehow be even borderline competent here. Leftists are about control, this is an example of how.
Here, for those that need it pounded home
Wrong. It is you who has shown that he does not understand what Cruz is speaking to even though you have been told multiple times.With every other statement Cruz makes on this subject, he proves he doesn't understand what is being discussed here or has the first clue regarding the inner working of the internet.
Hyperbolic nonsense.Ted Cruz doesn't give a flying monkey's butt about whether or not he's right.
Cruz is entirely doing this to out flank every Republican Presidential candidate in 2015-2016 by attacking everything Obama wants and does. Cruz knows full well that anyone who is even remotely tech informed knows he's completely full of crap. But most of us won't vote for him anyways. The crazy radicals within the GOP primaries, most of whom are old, white and tech illiterate will eat Cruz's statements up. Cruz knows he has to win the primaries and playing to the extremists is how he plans on doing just that.
I fully suspect that Cruz knows he's wrong. But he doesn't care he's wrong because being wrong is just a means to an end. In a sense Cruz is farming the idiots for their votes. Expect Cruz to be nearly 100% "Whatever Obama Wants, I Hate" for the next two years. Doesn't matter what, Cruz's plan of attack is to be the anti-Obama. Whether or not that ticket will get him into the White House remains to be seen.
The only reason that he may not, is that it is a dishonest question in regards to the topic.You're probably going to die before you get a coherent answer to that.Can you tell us how net neutrality restricts innovation? I'll wait.
Ted Cruz has done the damage needed to kill NN. Cons like Cruz, and Rush Limbaugh have turned this into a Partisan issue. For the low information voters, that's enough for them to again allow businesses like Time Warner and Comcast to act against the interest of American Citizens.
Thanks Cruz.
How do low-information voters allow businesses to do anything?
That isn't at all evident.They vote for talking heads like Ted Cruz a position of power that will fight every step of the way to make sure Comcast/Time Warner can do what ever they like to the Internet.
I'm pretty sure that it wasn't just low-info voters who elected Cruz. I'm not entirely familiar with the issue of 'Net neutrality or his position on it, but dismissing this Senator as a "talking head" does suggest that maybe you fall into that category of low information too.
And you are wrong.I understand his position on the matter completely. (Which is he doesn't understand the issue at all.) It only takes a second of research on Net Neutrality to understand Ted Cruz is spouting nonsense, and that no one outside of Telecom companies stand to win anything if we allow ISP's to kill Net Neutrality.
I'm not dismissing Ted Cruz on Net Neutrality.
And you are wrong.
He has only addressed the way it is now and the impact of classifying it as a utility, and he is completely correct.
No, you're dismissing him altogether as a "talking head" who preys on low-info voters.
The only reason that he may not, is that it is a dishonest question in regards to the topic.
The real question in regards to this topic should be; Can you tell us how classifying the internet as a utility restricts innovation?
Cruz already answered that question.
Cruz is against trying to achieve neutrality by classifying the internet as a utility.
Which is what his comments are about.
As he stated in his published opinion, the following is what he wants.
In the past, such a person would have to know the right people and raise substantial start-up capital to get a brick-and-mortar store running. Not anymore. The Internet is the great equalizer when it comes to jobs and opportunity. We should make a commitment, right now, to keep it that way.
:naughty The only ignorance here is yours, as it is you who doesn't understand what he is speaking to.So when Ted Cruz says "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." You agree with him?
Ted Cruz doesn't understand the issue, and seemingly you seem to be ignorant on the matter as well.
:naughty The only ignorance here is yours, as it is you who doesn't understand what he is speaking to.
He is speaking to Obama's proposal to have the FCC classify the internet as a Utility.
Do you really not understand that?
Btw, you forgot to include the information as to what he was speaking to in your quote.
He is speaking to regulation by the FCC that classifying it as a Utility would bring forth.
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.
President Obama this week came out aggressively for net neutrality and turning the Internet into a public utility. Some in the online community have embraced this call, thinking that cheaper prices would result. But when has that worked? Government-regulated utilities invariably destroy innovation and freedom. Which is more innovative, the U.S. Postal Service or Facebook and Twitter? Which is better for consumers, city taxi commissions or Uber and Lyft?
If the federal government seizes the power to regulate Internet pricing and goods and services, the regulations will never end.
And as pointed out previously, in a post that you even liked, he, like most folks, want it to remain the way it is.
In the past, such a person would have to know the right people and raise substantial start-up capital to get a brick-and-mortar store running. Not anymore. The Internet is the great equalizer when it comes to jobs and opportunity. We should make a commitment, right now, to keep it that way.
:naughty The only ignorance here is yours, as it is you who doesn't understand what he is speaking to.
He is speaking to Obama's proposal to have the FCC classify the internet as a Utility.
Do you really not understand that?
Btw, you forgot to include the information as to what he was speaking to in your quote.
He is speaking to regulation by the FCC that classifying it as a Utility would bring forth.
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.
President Obama this week came out aggressively for net neutrality and turning the Internet into a public utility. Some in the online community have embraced this call, thinking that cheaper prices would result. But when has that worked? Government-regulated utilities invariably destroy innovation and freedom. Which is more innovative, the U.S. Postal Service or Facebook and Twitter? Which is better for consumers, city taxi commissions or Uber and Lyft?
If the federal government seizes the power to regulate Internet pricing and goods and services, the regulations will never end.
And as pointed out previously, in a post that you even liked, he, like most folks, want it to remain the way it is.
[/quote]In the past, such a person would have to know the right people and raise substantial start-up capital to get a brick-and-mortar store running. Not anymore. The Internet is the great equalizer when it comes to jobs and opportunity. We should make a commitment, right now, to keep it that way.
Odd, I do not recall that Politicians are not supposed to point out the supposed downfalls of legislation.Cruz has given his opinion as to what regulators MAY do... There are no proposal from the Obama administration or the FCC to do what Mr. Cruz is suggesting MIGHT happen...Is there?
Not just throttling, but packet prioritization also.Throttling is happening now...Correct?
And here is the problem. That is a topic for a different discussion.What protections and guarrantees do the consumers have that ISP's will not do what consumer groups claim?
Do you know that Ted Cruz and Congress have over-sight of the FCC? That means that is the FCC enacts any regulationthat kills "innovation"... Ted Cruz and Congress can order the FCC to change its rule? Did you know Congress has that power?
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?