Cruz attacked from the air over net neutrality

The Hill ^ | 03/13/15 05:11 PM EDT | Julian Hattem

[SoConPubbie]

Net neutrality advocates are taking to the skies over Austin, Texas, this weekend to hit Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for his opposition to net neutrality.

A plane dragging a 1,500-square-foot banner reading “Don’t be an enemy of the Internet, Sen. Ted Cruz,” will fly above the Texas capital on Friday and Saturday afternoons, while the South by Southwest festival goes on down below.

Cruz has been one of Congress’s most vocal critics of federal net neutrality regulations, which attempt to ensure that Internet service providers such as Comcast and Time Warner Cable treat all online traffic equally.

Last year, he called it “ObamaCare for the Internet.”

The banner-toting plane is being launched by Demand Progress, Fight for the Future and Free Press, which all lobbied vigorously in support of tough net neutrality rules over the last year. In February, the three groups flew a similar banner above Comcast’s headquarters in Philadelphia, while using the popular online meme Grumpy Cat to protest the cable giant’s opposition to new regulations.

“Our banner is an Internet-backed reminder to Cruz and all politicians that if you stand against net neutrality, you are standing against the Internet,” Demand Progress executive director David Segal said in a statement.

Last month, the Federal Communications Commission imposed the toughest Internet regulations the U.S. has ever seen by regulating the Web like a public utility.

Groups like Free Press, Demand Progress and Fight for the Future, among others, were critical in getting the agency’s three Democrats to embrace those rules, and helped to drive about 4 million public comments to the FCC over the last year — far more than it had ever seen before.

[VanDeKoik]

“being launched by Demand Progress”

Gee, cant imagine what type of group that is.

[Steve_Seattle]

I bought a “DONT TREAD ON ME” flag over the Internet a couple of weeks ago. I wonder if that’s got me on an FBI/NSA watch list.

[Mr. Peabody]

These regulations won’t end this oligopoly, will they?
Have you thought this through at all?
What problem will these regulations solve?

[onyx]

B T T T ! ! ! ©

[Revel]

The word is that even Netflix is backing down from This because they just figured out that they will die because of it. Companies will no longer offer unlimited bandwidth. You will pay for all of it. Therefore people will drop Netflix.

[roofgoat]

you can’t indoctrinate if people leave TV/Cable for Netflix.

Also, big money/power hates that they can’t bury you in non stops ads. It infuriates them and they are also part of the proposed “change”.

[abb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._McChesney

[So Circumstanced]

Surrender, Dorothy

[Steve_Seattle]

"The difference is that the free market corrects the issues in the hair cutting and internet content industries. The oligopoly controlling infrastructure of the internet does not seem to be as responsive to the free market. Therefore, in this case only the government has a right and duty to act."

I don't like Comcast's seemingly endless rate increases (pretty much every month, it seems to inch up a buck or so), so I'm considering switching to Frontier. It seems that there are options.

[adorno]

Last year, he called it “ObamaCare for the Internet.”

Sounds good, and accurate, and catchy.

But, perhaps he might try a different 'word', which might be a lot more accurate and to the point.

He should be calling it 'net neuterality'. The FCC regulations is just the first step towards 'neutering' the internet 'rights' of the people, namely the rights of free speech and freedom of the press, and the right to assemble or gather together.

We need a sign to carry around and to paste on all our car bumpers, that says, "No to Net NEUTERALITY!".

[Nuc 1.1]

The FCC is the minion of Sorous’s funded activist groups. Conservatives should attack along this axis every chance they get. Sorous’s groups are sadicious and are a clear danger to the republic.

[Nuc 1.1]

Sadicious wow what spelling. Seditious There, that is better.

[jospehm20]

That argument seems pretty twisted to me. Government is pretty much never the answer to improve anything, including this.

[trebb]

Post Office and Post Roads are examples of need w/o a true (at the time) free market solution. Send mail through the post office and it is deemed rendered to the recipient for legal reasons - not so with a Internet email account. It is a really big stretch to consider the Internet akin to the post office - similar to all the stretches where the Feds have been allowed to overstep their constitutional bound via torturing the Commerce Clause to its benefit and the detriment of Freedom of the People by sidestepping the 10th Amendment much as Obama sidesteps the same Constitution with much of his illegal activities.

I sometimes get slammed for trying to point out that, just because something seems to meet the requirements of one's sensibilities, and sounds logical, does not make it constitutional because THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT CONTAIN A NOBLE-CAUSE CLAUSE...

[HiTech RedNeck]

and even if it did, who’s the maven of nobility supposed to be?

[trebb]

and even if it did, who’s the maven of nobility supposed to be?

Exactly my point - many make statements about how they think some action by the Feds is perfectly fine, then they use John Roberts "discretion of interpretation" to make it fit their sensibilities - they become the maven.

Many think that their sense of logic makes something Constitutional and they don't really think it through as to how opening that one floodgate can/will/has destroyed many of the Freedom protections inherent in the Constitution.